^6GU7 


A  COMMENTARY 


^ 


T": 


ON 


THE  DECLARATION 


OF 


THE  FIGHTS  OF  NATIONS 


ADOPTED  BY 

THE  AMERICAN  INSTITUTE 

OF 

IN  'ERNATIONAL  LAW 


BY 

FRANCISCO  JOSE  URRUTIA 

FORMER  :.iir  ISTER  OF  FOREIGN  AFFAIRS  IN  COLOMBIA 


WASHINGTON;  D.  C. 
1916 


\m    L 


L^ 


A  COMMENTARY 


ON 


THE  DECLARATION 


OF 


THE  RIGHTS  OF  NATIONS 


ADOPTED  BY 

THE  AMERICAN  INSTITUTE 

OF 

INTERNATIONAL  LAW 


OU^"^  BY 

FRANCISCO  JOSE  URRUTIA 

FORMER  MINISTER  OF  FOREIGN  AFFAIRS  IN  COLOMBIA 


WASHINGTON;  D.  C. 
1916 


r^ 


'The  small  States  of  the  world  have 
a  right  to  enjoy  the  same  respect  for 
their  sovereignty  and  for  their  territo- 
rial integrity  that  great  and  powerful 
nations  expect  and  insist  upon." 

"The  world  has  a  right  to  be  free 
from  every  disturbance  of  its  peace  that 
has  its  origin  in  agresion  and  disregard 
of  the  rights  of  peoples  and  nations." 

President  Wilson's  declaration  in  his 
address  before  the  League  to  Enforce 
Peace — May  27,  1916. 


355127 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2008  with  funding  from 

Microsoft  Corporation 


http://www.archive.org/details/commentaryondeclOOurrurich 


The  American  Institute  of  International  Law,  at 
Its  first  session,  held  in  Washington  on  January  6, 
of  this  year,  under  the  auspices  of  the  Second  Pan- 
American  Scientific  Congress,  unanimously  adopted 
the  five  following  Articles  to  be  known  as  The  De- 
claration of  the  Rights  of  Nations: 

Declaration  of  the  Rights  of  Nations 

"Whereas,  the  municipal  law  of  civilized  na- 
tions recognizes  and  protects  the  right  to  life,  the 
right  to  liberty,  to  which  the  Declaration  of  Inde- 
pendence of  the  United  States  adds  the  right  to  the 
pursuit  of  happiness,  the  right  to  legal  equality,  the 
right  to  property  and  the  right  to  the  enjoyment  of 
the  aforesaid  rights,  creating  a  duty  on  the  part  of 
the  citizens  or  subjects  of  each  nation  to  observe 
them;  and 

"Whereas,  these  fundamental  rights,  thus  univ- 
ersally recognized,  are  familiar  to  the  peoples  of  all 
civilized  countries,  and 

"Whereas,  these  fundamental  rights  can  be  stat- 
ed in  terms  of  international  law  and  can  be  applied 
to  the  relations  of  the  members  of  the  society  of 
nations,  one  with  another,  just  as  they  have  been  ap- 
plied in  the  relations  of  the  citizens  or  subjects  of  the 
states  forming  the  Society  of  Nations ;  and 


"Whereas,  these  fundamental  rights  of  national 
jurisprudence,  namely,  the  right  to  life,  the  right  to 
liberty,  the  right  to  the  pursuit  of  happiness,  the  right 
to  equality  before  the  law,  the  right  of  the  nation  to 
exist  and  to  protect  and  to  conserve  its  existence;  the 
right  of  independence  and  the  freedom  to  develop 
itself  without  interference  or  control  from  other  na- 
tions, the  right  of  equality  in  law  and  before  the  law; 
the  right  to  territory  within  defined  boundaries  and 
to  exclusive  jurisdiction  therein;  and  the  right  to  the 
observance  of  those  fundamental  rights; 

"Therefore,  the  American  Institute  of  Internatio- 
nal Law  unanimously  adopts  at  its  first  session,  held 
in  the  city  of  Washington,  in  the  United  States  of 
America,  on  the  sixth  day  of  January,  1916,  in  con- 
nection with  and  under  the  auspices  of  the  Second 
Pan-American  Scientific  Congress,  the  following  five 
articles,  together  with  the  commentary  thereon,  to 
be  known  as  the  Declaration  of  the  Rigfhts  of  Na- 
tions." 

I. — Every  Nation  has  the  right  to  exist,  to  pro- 
tect and  conserve  its  existence,  but  this  right  neither 
implies  the  right  nor  justifies  the  act  of  the  State  to 
protect  itself  or  to  conserve  its  existence  by  the  com- 
mission of  unlawful  acts  against  innocent  arid  unof- 
fending States. 

2. — Every  Nation  has  the  right  to  independence 
in  the  sense  that  it  has  a  right  to  the  pursuit  of  hap- 
piness and  is  free  to  develop  itself  without  interfe- 
rence or  control  from  other  States,  provided  that  in 
so  doing  it  does  not  interfere  with  or  violate  the  just 
rights  of  other  States. 


3- — Every  Nation  is  in  law  and  before  law  the 
equal  of  every  other  State  composing  the  society  of 
Nations,  and  all  States  have  the  right  to  claim,  and 
according  to  the  Declaration  of  Independence  of  the 
United  States,  to  assume,  among  the  powers  of  the 
earth,  the  separate  and  equal  station  to  which  the 
laws  of  nature  and  of  nature's  God  entitle  them. 

4. — Every  Nation  has  the  right  to  territory  with- 
in defined  boundaries  and  to  exercise  exclusive  juris- 
diction over  this  territory  and  all  persons,  whether 
native  or  foreign,  found  therein. 

5. — Every  Nation  entitled  to  a  right  by  the  law 
of  nations  is  entitled  to  have  that  right  respected  and 
protected  by  all  other  Nations ;  for  right  and  duty  are 
correlative,  and  the  right  of  one  is  the  duty  of  all  to 
observe. 


Although  the  above  Declarations  has  not  yet 
been  officially  ratified  by  the  American  Republics, 
there  is  no  doubt  that  it  embodies  their  views.  The 
American  Institute  of  International  Law  is  compos- 
ed of  one  hundred  and  five  members,  among  whom 


are  the  highest  authorities  on  international  law  of 
both  Americas.  The  Declaration  adopted  by  the  Ins- 
titute must  unquestionably  be  looked  upon  as  an 
authorized,  solemn,  and  timely  recognition  of  certain 
fundamental  principles  in  the  existence  of  Nations, 
which  by  the  common  acceptance  of  all  are  to  be 
considered  as  "international  laws." 

The  Declaration  of  the  Rights  of  Nations  adopt- 
ed by  the  American  Institute  of  International  Law 
differs,  by  the  practical  aims  in  view,  from  similar 
Declarations,  of  mere  academic  importance,  such  as 
those  of  the  time  of  the  French  Revolution  with  their 
metaphysical  conceptions  of  nations  and  of  interna- 
tional life.  Viewed  from  this  standpoint  of  practical 
and  positive  results  which  it  is  sought  to  attain,  the 
Declaration  of  the  Institute  is  of  great  importance. 
The  object  is  to  restore  confidence  in  political  decla- 
rations at  a  time  when  such  declarations  have  fallen 
into  discredit;  it  is  to  remove  them  from  the 
speculative  field  of  the  routine  life  of  nations  and  to 
surround  them  with  effective  gfuarantees.  This  was 
the  aim  and  object  of  those  who,  in  the  various  Ame- 
rican republics,  have  labored  diligently  to  organize 
the  Institute;  and  these  same  aims  and  objects  were 
asserted  by  the  members  in  the  recent  sessions  when 
the  declarations  was  adopted- 


10 


The  spirit  of  justice  and  of  practical  internatio- 
nal progress  of  which  the  initial  work  of  the  Institute 
was  the  fruit,  will  logically  bring  the  Institute  to  the 
consideration  of  the  following  questions : 

The  Rights  of  Nations  having  been  declared  and 
accepted,  what  remedies  does  the  Institute  agree 
upon  and  declare  in  the  case  of  their  violation?  In 
what  manner  must  these  remedies  be  enforced  in  or- 
der that  the  violated  rights  may  be  restored? 

The  common  acceptance  of  principles,  and  to  an 
even  greater  extent,  the  common  adoption  of  inter- 
national laws,  constitute  a  great  moral  progress;  but 
it  will  not  be  effective  until  such  principles  and  laws 
receive  sanctions  which  guarantee  them,  and  until 
there  is  a  practical  method  of  enforcing  them,  of 
preventing  their  violation,  and  of  meting  out  pun- 
ishment to  those  who  transgress  them. 

In  general  it  is  not  a  knowledge  of  the  Rights 
of  Nations  that  is  lacking  in  international  life; — what 
is  lacking  is  respect  for  the  Rights  of  Nations.  Few 
will  be  found  to  dispute  the  Rights  of  Nations  adop- 
ted by  the  Institute,  but  there  will  be  many  who  will 
ask: 

If  the  American  Institute  of  International  Law 
seeks  an  immediate  and  practical  result  the  re-esta- 
blishment of  the  absolute  reign  of  international  law 
between  the  American  Nations,  and  there  be  one  or 
more  matters,  in  which,  in  violation  of  the  Rights 
declared  by  the  Institute,  moral  and  material  rights 
have  been  subject  to  gross  attack  in  the  internatio- 
nal life  of  America,  will  not  the  re-establishment  of 
law  demand  that  there  be  undertaken  a  prior  and  in- 


II 


itial  work,  that  of  bringing  about  the  re-establish- 
ment of  the  rights  previously  violated? 

Is  it  possible  to  conceive  that  any  one  wishes  to 
found  the  Empire  of  great  principles  of  justice  upon 
the  moral  bankruptcy  of  the  same  principles  whose 
violation  is  not  only  sanctioned  but  obstinately  main- 
tained? 

The  moral  law  of  nations  is  the  same  as  that  of 
individuals,  and  there  cannot  be  varying  standards 
of  morals  according  to  how  circumstances  appear  to 
require  them. 

These  considerations,  which  I  now  respectfully 
submit  to  the  eminent  men  who  compose  the  Ame- 
rican Institute  of  International  Law,  were  outlined 
by  me  in  the  New  York  World  of  January  26  of  this 
year  when  I  was  asked,  as  one  of  the  Colombian  mem- 
bers of  the  Institute,  for  an  expression  of  opinion  on 
the  declaration  of  the  Rights  of  Nations.  I  explain- 
ed that  all  of  those  rights  had  been  violated  and  con- 
tinued to  be  violated  in  the  case  of  Colombia  by  the 
separation  of  Panama.  Further  I  said  that  the  faith 
of  Colombians,  as  well  as  of  many  other  Americans, 
in  these  Rights — so  solemnly  declared — would  not  be 
quickened  until  the  violation  of  which  we  are  the  vic- 
tims had  been  properly  atoned  for,  until  there  was 
proof  that  really  an  era  had  dawned  in  America  in 
which  the  supremacy  of  Law  was  an  actual  fact.  Un- 
til then,  when  we  hear  harmonious  utterances  and 
admirable  phrases  such  as  adorned  the  sessions  of 
the  Second  Pan-American  Scientific  Congress,  we 
shall  continue  to  say:  "words,  words,  nothing  but 
words !" 


12 


I  shall  endeavour  here  more  fully  to  set  forth 
what  I  so  briefly  touched  upon  in  the  New  York 
World,  referring,  in  my  statement  of  the  facts  on 
which  Colombia  relies  in  her  claims  agfainst  the 
United  States,  to  the  official  documents  of  the  case 
and  the  very  complete  presentations  already  publish- 
ed, many  of  them  by  American  citizens. 


13 


A  STATEMENT  OF  FACTS 


A  STATEMENT  OF  FACTS 

On  November  3,  1903,  a  group  of  persons  in  the 
city  of  Panama,  proclaimed  the  secession  of  the  Co- 
lombian Department  of  that  name,  which  had  been  an 
integral  part  of  the  Republic  of  Colombia  ever  since 
the  latter,  on  freeing  itself  from  Spain,  had  establish- 
ed itself  as  an  independent  and  sovereign  State. 

This  group  which  only  represented  a  very  small 
proportion  of  the  inhabitants  of  the  city  of  Panama, 
had  secured  in  advance,  by  means  assistance  of  the 
Washington,  the  co-operation  and  assistance  of  the 
military  and  naval  forces  of  the  United  States, 
against  any  action  by  the  Government  of  Colombia. 
This  co-operation  and  assistance  became  effective 
both  before  and  after  the  seditious  outbrealk  of  the 
3rd.  of  November,  as  we  shall  see  a  little  later. 

A  few  hours  after  the  proclamation  of  the  indep- 
endence of  the  alleged  new  State,  and  in  violation  of 
all  international  principles  and  practices,  the  Govern- 
ment of  Washington  recognized  it,  even  before  it 
was  possible  to  know  the  wishes  of  the  inhabitants  of 
the  remainder  of  the  Department  of  Panama.  Amer- 
ican warships,  acting  under  orders  despatched  in  ad- 
vance, gathered  in  Colombian  waters  on  the  Atlantic 
and  Pacific  to  prevent  the  exercise  of  Colombian 
sovereignty  and  the  action  of  Colombian  forces  sent 
to  repress  the  rebelion,  which  otherwise  would  have 
been  crushed  in  a  few  hours.  Following  this  the  Gov- 

17 


ernment  of  the  United  States  guaranteed  to  the  reb- 
el government  of  Panama  the  maintenance  of  its  de- 
facto  jurisdiction  over  that  part  of  Colombian  terri- 
tory within  the  Department  of  Panama,  and  this 
guarantee  v^^as  embodied  in  an  agreement  entered  in- 
to with  the  rebels,  made  in  form  of  a  public  Treaty, 
which  has  continued  to  be  opposed  to  the  exercise 
of  Colombian  sovereignty  over  the  said  territory. 
Thus,  by  the  action  of  the  Government  of  the  United 
States  of  America,  the  Republic  of  Colombia  was  dis- 
membered in  violation,  not  only  of  the  most  elemen- 
tary principles  of  international  law,  but  further,  of  a 
public  treaty — the  Treaty  of  1846 — under  the  terms 
of  which  the  United  States  itself  guaranteed  the  ter- 
ritorial integrity  of  Colombia  and  the  rights  of  sov- 
ereignty and  property  which  Colombia  had  and  pos- 
sessed over  this  very  territory,  torn  from  it  by  the 
revolutionary  outbreak  of  November  3,  1903. 

We  shall  see  below  how  the  existence  of  this 
Treaty  gives  even  greater  gravity  to  the  spoliation  of 
which  Colombia  was  victim. 


18 


The  facts  stated — to  the  consideration  of  which 
we  shall  return  later — were  of  such  g'ravity;  the  blow 
struck  at  the  rights  of  Colombia  was  so  great,  its 
existence  as  a  sovereign  nation  was  so  affected  and 
the  acts  committed  were  so  outrageous,  even  in  the 
manner  of  their  presentation  to  the  world,  that  if  Co- 
lombia had  had  sufficient  material  strength,  it  could 
not  have  done  otherwise  than  declare  war  upon  the 
United  States,  as  any  other  nation  would  have  done 
which  did  not  find  itself  in  such  manifest  conditions 
of  military  and  naval  inferiority.  Such  a  war  would 
have  remained  in  the  annals  of  contemporary  interna- 
tional relations  as  the  prototype  of  a  perfectly  legiti- 
mate war,  justified  alike  by  the  magnitude  of  the 
wrong  done  and  by  its  attending  circumstances. 

The  material  weakness  of  Colombia  placed  it  in 
the  very  difficult  position  of  being  obliged  to  limit  its 
action  to  protest  which  it  was  not  able  to  back  up  by 
force. 

In  all  the  protests  made  to  Washington  since 
the  seditious  outbreak  was  known  in  1903,  and 
throughout  the  painful  calvary  which  Colombia  has 
borne  for  more  than  twelve  years,  my  country  has  had 
the  support  of  prominent  men  of  the  United  States 
who  have  earned  the  enduring  gratitude  of  Colom- 
bia. From  the  moment  the  deed  was  known  in 
Washington,  influential  voices  were  lifted  in  loud 
condemnation  of  the  spoliation.  Protests  were  heard 
in  Congress  and  in  the  press,  from  the  platform  and 
from  the  pulpit,  and  throughout  the  Universities. 

These  protests  came  from  men  of  the  standing 
of  Senator  Bacon  of  Georgia,  a  democrat,  and  even 

19 


from  Republican  Senators  like  Hoar__of_Massachus- 
sets  and  Cullom  of_Illinais,  and  all  agreed  that  Co- 
lombia was  entitled  to  reparation  for  the  damage 
she  had  sustained. 

From  the  speech  of  Senator  Bacon  in  the  Senate 
of  the  United  States  on  January  29,  1904,  as  reported 
in  the  Congressional  Record  we  take  the  following: 

"I  am  content  with  anything  which  shall  com- 
mit the  Government  of  the  United  States  in  the  face 
of  the  world,  to  the  proposition  that  whatever  there 
may  be  of  difference  between  the  United  States  and 
Colombia,  the  United  States  as  a  g:reat  overshadow- 
ing power  which  cannot  be  compelled  by  this  feeble 
power  to  do  anything,  will  voluntarily  agree  with  it 
in  the  settlement  of  existing  differences;  and  that  if 
it  cannot  come  to  an  agreement  by  peaceful  nego- 
tiations it  will  not  assert  its  great  and  resistless 
power,  but  that  it  will  endeavour  to  have  a  deter- 
mination of  such  differences  and  the  claims  g:rowing 
out  thereof  by  some  impartial  tribunal" 

A  short  time  before  his  death  Senator  Cullom 
published  a  solemn  and  deliberate  statement  of  Se- 
nator Hoar's  view  upon  the  subject  in  such  a  way  as 
to  leave  no  reasonable  doubt  that  they  were  also  his 
own.  In  his  ''Fifty  Years  of  Public  Service",  on  Pages 
212  and  213,  Senator  Cullom  says. — 

"Senator  Hoar  was  disposed  to  be  against  the 
recognition  of  the  Republic  of  Panama,  and  it  has 
been  intimated  that  he  was  of  the  opinion  that  the 
Roosevelt  Administration  had  something  to  do  with 
the  bloodless  revolution  that  resulted  in  the  unit- 
ing with  the  United  States  of  that  part  of  Colombia 


ao 


which  now  forms  the  Canal  Zone.  .  .  The  President 
wanted  the  Senator  to  read  a  Message  which  he  had 
already  prepared,  in  reference  to  Colombia's  ac- 
tion in  rejecting  the  Treaty  and  the  canal  in  general, 
which  Message  showed  very  clearly  that  the  Presid- 
ent had  never  contemplated  the  secession  of  Panama, 
and  was  considering  different  methods  in  order  to 
obtain  the  right  of  way  across  the  Itshmus  from  Co- 
lombia; fully  expecting  to  deal  only  with  the  Colom- 
bian Government  on  the  subject. 

"The  President  was  sitting  around  the  table,  first 
on  one  side  of  Senator  Hoar  and  then  on  the  other, 
talking  in  his  usual  vigorous  fashion,  trying  to  get  the 
Senators's  attention  to  the  Message.  Senator  Hoar 
seemed  adverse  to  reading  it,  but  finally  sat  down 
and  without  seeming  to  pay  any  particular  attention 
to  what  he  was  perusing  he  remained  for  a  minute  or 
two,  then  arose  and  said:  "I  hope  I  may  never  live  to 
see  the  day  when  the  interest  of  my  country  are  plac- 
ed above  its  honor-"  He  at  once  retired  from  the 
room  without  uttering  another  word,  proceeding  to 
the  capitol.  Later  in  the  morning  he  came  to  me 
with  a  typewritten  paper  containing  the  conversa- 
tion between  the  President  and  himself,  and  asked 
me  to  certify  to  its  correctness.  I  took  the  paper  and 
read  it  over,  and  as  it  seemed  to  be  correct,  as  I  rem- 
embered the  conversation,  I  wrote  my  name  at  the 
pottom  of  it.  I  have  never  seen  or  heard  of  the  paper 


since." 


21 


A  substantial  library  could  be  formed  from  the 
newspapers,  magazines,  reviews,  lectures,  pamphlets, 
and  books  in  which  American  writers,  American  pu- 
blicists, American  historians,  American  politicians 
and  American  professors  have  laid  bare  the  facts  I 
have  stated,  and  have  declared  their  conviction  that 
Colombia  is  entitled  to  satisfaction  and  reparation. 
The  truth  has  been  slowly  penetrating  into  the 
conscience  of  the  people  of  the  United  States,  and  no 
one  has  been  able  to  smother  its  appeals.  Even  in  the 
text  books  used  in  teaching  contemporary  history  to 
the  youth  of  the  country  there  is  an  authentic  rela- 
tion of  the  facts. 

Furthermore  all  of  the  facts  were  minutely  and 
scrupulously  placed  on  record  before  the  Committee 
on  Foreign  Affairs  of  the  House  of  Representives 
which  was  considering  the  resolution  of  Congress- 
man Rainey,  the  illustrious  friend  of  Colombia, 
whose  attitude  on  the  floor  of* the  House  recalled 
the  memorable  ways  when  Henry  Clay  spoke  there 
in  defence  of  the  Republics  of  South  America. 
The  verbatim  account  of  the  proceedings  before  the 
House  Committee  on  Foreign  Affairs  is  published  as 
an  official  document  under  the  title  of  ''The  Story  of 
Panama.  Hearings  on  the  Rainey  Resolution  before 
the  Committee  on  Foreign  Affairs,  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives, 1912."  There  has  also  recently  been  pu- 
blished a  work  "America  and  the  Canal  Title"  by 
Joseph  C.  Treehoff  in  which  a  painstaking  statement 
of  all  the  facts  may  be  found. 

22 


A  discussion  of  the  truthfulness  of  these  facts  is 
quite  superflous  since  they  have  been  publicly  and 
solemnly  admitted  by  the  very  man  who  was  at  the 
head  of  the  American  Administration  in  1903,  and 
who  lent  his  aid  to  the  secession  of  Panama. 

Mr.  Theodore  Roosevelt  himself,  in  a  speech  to 
the  students  of  the  University  of  California  which  he 
delivered  at  Berkeley,  Cal.  on  March  2^^,  191 1,  made 
the  following  confession: — 

"I  am  interested  in  the  Panama  Canal  because  I 
started  it.  If  I  had  followed  traditional  conservative 
methods  I  should  have  submitted  a  dignified  State 
paper  of  probably  two  hundred  pages  to  Congress  an 
the  debate  would  have  been  going  on  yet.  But  I  took 
the  Canal  Zone,  and  let  Congress  debate  and  while 
the  debate  goes  on  the  Canal  does  also." 


Mr.  Albert  B.  Hart,  Professor  of  the  Science  of 
Government  at  Harvard  Universitv,  in  his  recently 
published  work  "The  Monroe  Doctrine — An  Inter- 
pretation" thus  refers  to  the  taking  of  Panama: 

"The  dramatic  turn  by  which  Colombia  was  sud- 
denly ousted  from  one  of  the  most  splendid  points  of 

23 


vantage  in  the  world,  startled  both  the  people  of  the 
United  States  and  of  Latin  America." 

Hiram  Bingham,  Professor  of  Latin-American 
history  at  the  University  of  Yale,  who  is  well  known 
throughout  the  New  World,  in  his  book  ''The  Monroe 
Doctrine — An  Obselete  Shibboleth",  also  quite  re- 
cently published,  says: 

"But  one  of  the  worst  blows  came  in  1903  when 
we  assisted  in  the  establishment  of  the  Republic  of 
Panama  and  then  took  control  of  the  Canal  Zone.  In 
other  words,  we  went  through  the  form  of  preventing 
a  South  American  republic  from  subduing  a  revolut- 
ion in  one  of  her  distant  provinces  and  eventually 
took  a  strip  of  that  province  because  we  believed  we 
owed  it  to  the  world  to  build  the  Panama  Canal !" 

We  should  never  finish  if  we  wished  to  reprodu- 
ce all  the  recent  testimony  worth  while  from  distin- 
guished Americans,  but  we  cannot  forego,  on  ac- 
count of  its  extreme  importance  the  citation  of  the 
article  written  by  one  of  the  greatest  Secretaries  of 
State  the  United  States  ever  had,  the  Hon.  Richard 
Olney,  who,  wrote  in  the  North  American  Review  in 
January  of  this  year  on  "Our  American  Policy"  thus: 

"Further  the  proceedings  by  which  the  United 
States  has  felt  constrained  to  compel  some  of  the 
smaller  and  less  advanced  American  states  to  perform 
their  international  duties  have  unquestionably  excit- 
ed uneasiness  in  all.  They  feel  those  proceedings, 
however  temporary  or  however  beneficial  in  purpose 
and  result,  to  be  distinctly  menacing  and  to  indicate 
purposes  and  ambitions  on  our  part  quite  inconsist- 
ent  with   their   dignity   and   safety   as   independent 

24 


States.  This  feeling  has  been  greatly  intensified  by 
the  lawless  violence  which  robbed  Colombia  of  its 
territory  for  the  purposes  of  the  Panama  Canal  en- 
terprise. It  thus  comes  about  that,  in  its  relations  to 
Latin-America  and  Europe  respectively,  the  United 
States  now  figures  as  a  self-appointed  guarantor  of 
the  rights  of  the  other,  both  the  guarantee  and  the 
guardianship  being  submitted  to  rather  than  desired 
and  neither  gaining  for  the  United  States  any  special 
consideration  or  reward — while  our  glaring  invasion 
of  Colombia's  sovereignty  makes  us  "suspect"  in  the 
eyes  of  all  Latin-America". 

It  would  also  be  impossible  to  omit  the  speech 
delivered  In  the  United  States  Senate  on  the  loth  of 
May  of  this  year  by  Senator  Ransdell  of  Louisiana 
who  said: 

"It  is  unnecessary  to  go  into  detail  as  to  the 
events  which  led  up  to  the  secession  of  Panama  and 
our  recognition  of  her  sovereignty.  Suffice  it  to  say 
that  the  Colombian  Senate  refused  to  ratify  a  propos- 
ed Treaty  with  us  in  regard  to  the  building  of  the 
Panama  Canal.  A  mock  revolution  was  brewing  in 
Panama  at  the  time,  which,  in  the  opinion  of  many 
persons  in  this  country  and  of  most  of  the  South- 
American  Nations,  was  fomented  by  the  United 
States." 

"On  November  3,  1903,  the  revolutionists,  re- 
presenting less  than  one  tenth  of  the  population  of  ^ 
the  State  of  Panama,  arose  and  took  possession  of  the 
City  of  Panama,  the  total  death  roll  being  one  china- 
man. The  report  of  the  success  of  the  revolution  was 
received  at  Washington  at  9.50  p.  m.,  that  day,  and 

25 


at  11.18  the  same  evening  orders  were  wired  from 
Washington  directing  the  commander  of  the  United 
States  Ship  Nashville,  which  was  conveniently  in 
the  harbor  of  Colon,  to  make  every  effort  to  prevent 
government  troops  at  Colon  from  proceeding  to  Pa- 
nama". 

"Thus,  Mr.  President,  while  the  solemn  treaty, 
by  which  we  guaranteed  the  sovereignty  of  Colom- 
bia over  Panama  was  in  full  force  and  effect,  the 
United  States  issued  a  military  order  preventing  Co- 
lombia moving  her  own  troops  over  her  own  railway 
to  her  own  Panama  to  put  down  an  opera  bouffe  re- 
volution. The  following  day,  November  4 — i  day,  17 
hours  and  41  minutes  after  the  issuing  of  the  insur- 
gent proclamation  of  independendence  in  the  City  of 
Panama — the  United  States  recognized  Panama  as 
a  sovereign  and  independent  nation,  and  shortly 
thereafter  practically  threatened  Colombia  with  war 
if  she  dared  to  invade  Panama  in  an  attempt  to  regain 

her  lost  sovereignty On  November  18, 

fifteen  days  after  the  revolution  broke  out,  we  signed 
a  treaty  with  the  Republic  of  Panama  giving  us  the 
Canal  Zone  and  the  right  to  build  the  canal.  The 
deed  was  consummated." 

Thus,  as  we  have  seen,  there  can  be  no  discus- 
sion of  the  facts  to  which  we  refer,  and  we  pass  to 
a  consideration  of  their  meaning  in  connection  with 
the  Rights  of  Nations  so  solemnly  declared  by  the 
American  Institute  of  International  Law. 

Later  on,  we  shall  also  have  something  to  say,  in 
closing,  about  the  influence  of  these  facts — so  long  as 
they  continue  unremedied — upon  the  development  of 

26 


the  Pan-American  ideal,  and  upon  the  future  peace 
and  prosperity  of  this  continent. 

It  way  be  added  that  this  statement  of  facts  is 
foreign  to  any  attempt  to  drag  political  parties  of  the 
United  States  into  the  discussion.  If  names  are  ment- 
ioned it  is  merely  because  some  names  are  unavoidab- 
ly linked  to  certain  events. 


27 


THE  RIGHTS  VIOLATED 


THE  RIGHTS  VIOLATED 

The  first  of  the  rights  of  nations  proclaimed  by 
the  American  Institute  of  International  Law  was 
this : 

"Every  nation  has  the  right  to  exist  and  to  pro- 
tect and  conserve  its  existence;  but  this  right  neither 
implies  the  right  nor  justifies  the  act  of  the  State  to 
protect  itself  or  to  conserve  its  existence  by  the  com- 
mission of  unlawful  acts  against  innocent  and  unof- 
fending States." 

This  is  the  cardinal  right  of  nations,  and  every 
other  right  really  springs  from  it.  In  proclaiming  it 
in  these  terms  the  Institute  of  International  Law  laid 
down  the  exact  limits  within  which  it  can  be  exercis- 
ed with  due  regard  to  the  reciprocal  rights  of  other 
nations- 

The  right  of  a  nation  to  exist  is  correlative  to  its 
duty  to  respect  the  same  right  in  other  nations.  Thus 
among  nations,  as  among  individuals,  the  primordial 
right  is  the  right  of  existence ;  but  neither  individuals 
nor  nations  may  carry  that  right — no  matter  how  es- 
sential it  be — further  than  the  deadline  of  the  right 
of  others. 

This  right  of  existence  was  solemnly  proclaim- 
ed as  a  philosophical  principle  in  the  days  of  the 
French  revolution.  In  the  Declaration  of  Independ- 
ence by  which  the  thirteen  original  States  emancipat- 

31 


ed  themselves  from  England,  and  in  the  similar  acts 
whereby  the  remainder  of  this  Continent  freed  itself 
from  Spain,  this  principle  was  proclaimed  by  the  new 
Nations  as  the  very  basis  of  their  autonomous  poli- 
tical existence.  Not  as  philosophical  principle  but  as 
a  positive  and  fundamental  public  right;  and  as  such 
it  was  incorporated  in  the  Declarations  of  Independ- 
ence and  the  Constitutions  of  the  new-born  Repub- 
lics in  North  as  well  as  in  South  America. 

As  a  matter  of  fact  all  that  the  Institute  of  In- 
ternational Law  did  was  merely  to  reiterate  the  en- 
dorsement by  all  American  nations  of  the  rightful 
meaning  of  the  principle  of  nationality,  for  which 
principle  every  one  of  them  fought  and  the  triumph 
of  which  every  one  of  them  ultimately  achieved. 

As  Mr.  James  Brown  Scott  said  of  the  Declara- 
tion of  the  Rights  of  Nations: 

"This  right  is  and  is  to  be  understood  in 
the  sense  in  which  the  right  to  life  is  understo- 
od in  national  law  according  to  which  it 
is  unlawful  for  a  human  being  to  take  human 
life  unless  it  is  necessary  to  do  so  in  self-defen- 
se against  an  unlawful  attack  threatening  the 
life  of  the  party  unlawfully  attacked: 

In  the  Chinese  Exclusion  Case  (reported 
in  130  United  States  Reports,  pp.  581 — 606) 
decided  by  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United 
States  it  was  said  that: 

To  preserve  its  independence,  and  give 
security  against  foreign  agression  and  en- 
croachment,   is    the    highest    duty    of    every 

32 


nation,  and  to  attain  these  ends  nearly 
all  other  considerations  are  to  be  subordinat- 
ed. It  matters  not  in  what  form  such  agres- 
sion and  encroachment  come,  whether  from 
the  foreign  nation  acting  in  its  national  cha- 
racter or  from  vast  hordes  of  its  people  crowd- 
ing in  upon  us.  The  Government,  possessing 
the  powers  which  are  to  be  exercised  for  pro- 
tection and  security,  is  clothed  with  authority 
to  determine  the  occasion  on  which  the  powers 
shall  be  called  forth;  and  its  determinations,  so 
far  as  the  subjects  affected  are  concerned,  are 
necessarily  conclusive  upon  all  its  departments 
and  officers." 

*ihe  right  of  a  State  to  exist  and  to  pro- 
tect and  conserve  its  existence  is  to  be  under- 
stood in  the  sense  in  which  the  right  of  an  in- 
dividual to  his  life  was  defined,  interpreted  and 
applied  in  terms  applicable  alike  to  nations  and 
to  individuals  in  the  well-known  English  case 
of  Regina  vs.  Dudley  (reported  in  15  Cox's 
Criminal  Cases,  p.  624;  14  Queen's  Bench  Di- 
vsion,  p.  273)  decided  by  the  Queens  Bench 
Division  of  the  High  Court  of  Justice  in  1884, 
to  the  effect  that  it  was  unlawful  for  ship- 
wrecked sailors  to  take  the  life  of  one  of  their 
number  in  order  to  preserve  their  own  lives, 
because  it  was  unlawful  to  the  common  law  of 
England  for  an  English  subject  to  take  human 
life  unless  to  defend  himself  against  an  unlaw- 
ful attack  of  the  assaillant  threatening  the  life 
of  the  party  unlawfully  attacked." 

33 


If  we  compare  the  official  documents  emanating 
from  the  first  Government  organizations  which  form- 
ed themselves  in  the  various  American  countries  in 
the  early  years  of  the  XIX  Century,  or  the  prin- 
ciples subscribed  to  by  the  leaders  of  the  revolutions 
in  them  against  the  mother  countries,  we  shall  see 
that  this  was  the  very  right  that  was  always  invoked, 
and  which  had  already  received  practical  application 
from  the  Britsh  Colonies  in  America. 

It  was  the  principle  maintained  by  Bolivar  be- 
fore the  Foreign  Office  in  1810  when  he  was  sent  to 
London  after  the  Revolution  of  Caracas,  and  he  made 
of  it  the  oriflame  which  others  after  him  carried  from 
one  end  of  Latin-America  to  the  other,  O'Higgins, 
San  Martin,  Puyrredon  and  all  the  other  early  admi- 
nistrators of  the  American  nations  emancipated  from 
Spain  pledged  themselves  absolutely  to  the  same 
principle.  On  it  they  founded  their  demands  for  re- 
cognition of  the  independence  of  their  various  coun- 
tries by  the  United  States,  which  was  finally  grant- 
ed. 

Throughout  the  communications  addressed  by 
Senor  Manuel  Torres,  the  Agent  of  Colombia  to  the 
Government  of  Washington,  and  the  first  official  re- 
presentative of  the  South-American  countries  accre- 
dited to  the  United  States,  the  principle  of  nationali- 
ty— which  had  already  been  the  basis  of  the  Ame- 
rican Declaration  of  Independence  —  was  firmly 
maintained. 

The  first  communication  from  Torres  to  the  Sta- 
te Department  in  which  he  urges  the  recognition  by 
the  United  States  of  the  Independence  of  Colombia  is 

34 


dated  December  15,  1820.  It  was  the  first  of  its  kind 
received  by  the  American  government..  The  commu- 
nication of  the  Agent  of  Colombia  had  a  decisive  in- 
fluence of  the  attitude  adopted  by  President  Monroe 
and  on  the  recognition  accorded  to  the  Latin-Ameri- 
can States. 

This  right  to  existence,  this  principle  of  nationa- 
lity, in  its  rightful  meaning  so  forcefully  urged  by  the 
Agent  of  Colombia  in  his  communications  to  the  Se- 
cretary of  State  not  only  as  the  spokesman  of  Colom- 
bia but  of  all  the  Latin-American  countries,  was  re- 
cognized as  far  as  they  were  concerned  by  President 
Monroe  in  his  Message  to  Congress  of  March  8,  1822, 
on  the  entry  into  the  family  of  nations  of  the  new 
American  States.  John  Ouincy  Adams,  with  unswerv- 
ing purpose  upheld  the  same  rights  and  same  princi- 
ple in  his  communications  to  Don  Joaquin  de  Andua- 
ga.  Minister  of  Spain  in  Washington,  when  the  latter 
protested  against  the  recognition.  Henry  Clay  had 
already  lent  all  the  power  of  his  eloquence  to  the  same 
propositions,  in  his  memorable  speeches  in  Con- 
gress of  May  1820  and  February  1821.  The  Commit- 
tee on  Foreign  Affairs  of  the  House  of  Representati- 
ves, referring  to  the  Message  of  President  Monroe 
also  espoused  and  corroborated  the  right  of  existence 
of  the  new-born  republics. 

We  have  referred  to  these  historical  precedents 
to  show  to  what  extent  the  right  now  solemnly  pro- 
claimed by  the  Institute  of  International  Law  is  weld- 
ed to  the  very  origin  of  all  American  nations.  It  is  the 
cardinal  axiom  ,as  well  of  international  law  as  of  their 
international  existence. 


35 


These  precedents  also  show  that  when  this  fun- 
damental right — this  principle — has  been  ignored 
and  violated,  as  it  was  ignored  and  violated  in  regard 
to  Colombia  in  the  matter  of  the  secession  of  Pana- 
ma, the  violation  has  been  really  a  violation  of  the 
sacred  principles  which  all  the  nations  of  America 
won  by  sacrifice  and  sealed  with  their  blood,  and 
which  for  more  than  a  century  they  all  believed  to  be 
unassailable:  the  principle  of  nationality. 

By  a  pityful  irony  of  fate,  it  fell  to  Colombia — 
the  Nation  which  with  greatest  energy  and  most 
constant  purpose  had  defended  this  principle,  and  to 
whose  initiative  on  her  own  behalf  and  on  behalf  of 
all  her  sister — nations  we  have  already  referred — it 
fell  to  Colombia  to  suffer  the  brutal  blow  which 
dismembered  her,  and  at  the  same  time  struck  at  the 
very  roots  of  international  life  on  this  continent. 


A  Nation's  right  to  exist,  is  the  right  to  maintain 
the  moral  and  material  integrity  of  its  being  as  a  na- 
tion. Therefore  the  right  to  maintain  and  protect  the 
fulness  of  its  sovereignty,  and  in  consequence  of  its 
independence,  the  fullness  of  its  sovereignty  over  a 

36 


given  territory  and  of  its  jurisdiction  over  the  inhabi- 
tants of  that  territory. 

The  dismemberment  of  Colombia  was  an  attack 
against  her  very  existence  as  a  sovereing  and  indep- 
endent nation.  Her  jurisdiction  over  the  most  valua- 
ble part  of  her  territory  was  ignored  and  she  was  prev- 
ented from  exercising  it ;  the  exercise  of  her  sovereign- 
ty over  her  own  territory  was  impeded ;  she  was  placed 
de  facto  outside  of  the  equal  station  which  by  right 
belonged  to  her  in  her  relations  with  other  countries, 
and  de  facto  the  independence  with  which  she  was  to 
exercise  her  sovereign  righits  was  trampled  upon. 
Not  one  right  of  Colombia,  but  every  right  of  Colom- 
bia was  violated,  and  thus  her  very  existence  as  a  Na- 
tion was  attacked. 

The  Republic  of  Colombia  was  formed  when 
with  the  territories  which  composed  the  Vice-Royalty 
of  New  Granada  and  the  Captaincy  General  of  Ve- 
nezuela, it  seceded  from  Spain.  After  1830,  by  a  com- 
mon accord,  Ecuador  and  Venezuela  were  establish- 
ed as  independent  States,  and  Nueva-Granada,  now 
Colombia,  remained  with  the  territory  of  the  Vice- 
Royalty  of  New  Granada  less  those  of  the  Presiden- 
cia  of  Quito  and  of  the  Captaincy  General  of  Vene- 
zuela. 

The  Isthmus  of  Panama  was  a  part  of  the  Vice- 
Royalty  of  New  Granada  ever  since  the  latter  was  es- 
tablished by  Royal  Letters-Patent  of  the  King  of 
Spain  in  1739.  When  the  Independence  of  the  Vice- 
Royalty  and  therefore  that  of  the  Isthmus,  by  the  ef- 
fort of  the  Granadian  forces,  the  Isthmus  of  Panama 
continued  to  belong  to  Colombia  and  it  spontaneous- 

37 


ly  declared  its  intention  so  to  do.  Only  by  disregard 
of  historical  truth  can  it  be  maintained  that  Panama 
at  any  time  prior  to  1903  was  an  independent  State, 
or  that  it  won  its  independence  from  Spain  apart  from 
Colombia  or  by  its  own  efforts. 

The  Act  of  Independence  subscribed  to  in  the 
City  of  Panama,  when  it,  along  with  the  other  cities 
of  the  Vice-Royalty  of  New  Granada,  declared  its 
emancipation  from  the  rule  of  Spain  reads  in  part : 

"Panama  spontaneously  and  in  accordance- 
with  the  general  desires  of  the  people  within 
its  borders  hereby  declares  itself  free  and  ind- 
ependent from  the  Spanish  Government;  and 
the  territory  of  the  Provinces  of  the  Isthmus 
belongs  to  the  Republic  of  Colombia  in  whose 
Congress  Panama  will  be  represented  by  De- 
puties." 
This  document  clearly  shows  that  when  Pana- 
me  threw  off  the  Spanish  yoke  its  purpose  in  doing 
so  was  not  to  form  a  seperate  State  but  to  be  incor- 
porated into  Colombia,  that  is  to  say,  to  continue  to 
be  after  emancipation  a  portion  of  New  Granada  as 
it  had  been  in  the  Colonial  times  inmmediately  prece- 
eding  the  emancipation. 

The  Declaration  of  Independence  of  Panama  was 
communicated  by  Seiior  Torres,  the  Colombian 
agent,  to  Secretary  of  State,  John  Quincy  Adams,  in 
the  following  terms: 

Philadelphia, 
April  6,  1822. 
Your  Excellency, 

In  your  despatch  of  the  i8th  of  Janua- 
ry last  past.  Your  Excellency  was  pleased  to 

38 


say  to  me  that  as  soon  as  advices  were  receiv- 
ed of  the  occupation  of  the  Isthmus  and  Place 
of  Panama  by  the  troops  of  Colombia  they 
should  be  communicated  to  this  Department. 
Complying  with  the  desires  of  Your  Excellen- 
cy, I  have  the  honor  to  inform  you,  that  the 
inhabitants  of  Panama  spontaneously  and  of 
common  accord  declared  their  independence 
on  November  28th  of  last  year  and  by  the  sa- 
me Act  incorporated  themselves  in  the  Repub- 
lic of  Colombia  whose  troops  then  occupied 
and  do  now  occupy  the  said  important  points. 

I  reiterate  to  Your  Excellency  the  senti- 
ments of  esteem  and  deep  respect  with  which 
I  have  the  honor  to  remain 

Your  Excellency's 
.   Most  Obedient  and  faithful  servant, 

Manuel  Torres. 
To  His  Excellency 

John  Quincy  Adams, 

Secretary  of  State  of  the  United  States. 

Thus  the  Isthmus  of  Panama  was  always  up  to 
1903,  an  integral  part  of  the  territory  of  Colombia 
and  anything  that  has  been  said  to  the  contrary  is 
without  the  slightest  foundation.  Panama  never  was 
a  separate  or  independent  entity,  neither  during  the 
Spanish  domination  nor  after  our  independence  had 
been  declared.  Whatever  revolutionary  movements 
there  were  on  the  Isthmus  prior  to  1903  were  in  the 

39 


nature  of  internal  political  disorders,  similar  to  those 
in  other  parts  of  the  Republic. 

Therefore  the  separation  of  the  Isthmus  of  Pa- 
nama from  Colombia  in  the  manner  in  which  it  was 
effected  was  simply  a  dismemberment  of  the  territo- 
ry with  which  Colombia  had  been  constituted  as  a 
sovereign  nation,  which  territory  belonged  to  her 
under  the  general  principle  of  law  Uti  possidetis  juris 
of  1810,  adopted  by  all  American  nations  on  their 
emancipation.  Colombia  was  recognized  as  a  sovere- 
ign State  with  the  Isthmus  as  an  integral  part  of  her 
territory.  To  tear  away  this  strip  of  land,  as  was 
done  in  1903,  was  to  attack  Colombia  in  her  very  right 
to  existence,  in  the  essential  element  of  her  sovere- 
ignty as  understood  and  accepted  in  the  law  and  co- 
mity of  Nations- 

In  the  memorable  message  of  President  Monroe 
of  March  8,  1822,  referring  to  the  manner  in  which 
the  Spanish  Colonies  had  won  their  independence,  he 
said: 

''The  provinces  composing  the  Republic 
of  Colombia,  after  having  separately  declared 
their  independence,  were  united  by  a  funda- 
mental law  of  the  17th  of  December,  1819." 

One  of  these  provinces  was  Panama.  Monroe 
recognized  Panama  as  an  integral  part  of  Colombia. 
His  historic  Message  tells  better  than  any  other  do- 
cument just  how  the  Republic  of  Colombia  was  form- 
ed. 


40 


Colombia  had  the  right,  and  will  always  have  the 
right  to  have  her  territorial  integrity  respected,  but 
in  the  case  of  the  United  States  of  America  this  right 
was  of  an  especially  solemn  nature  for  in  addition  to 
its  being  founded  in  the  general  principles  of  interna- 
tional law,  it  was  consecrated  by  a  public  Treaty  by 
which  the  United  States  guaranteed  to  Colombia  the 
rights  of  sovereignty  and  of  property  which  it  had 
and  possessed  over  the  Isthmus  of  Panama. 

Let  us  examine  the  historical  antecedents  and 
the  stipulations  of  this  Treaty  pertinent  thereto. 
When  the  time  arrived  to  develop  the  priceless  yet 
remote  American  territory  on  the  Pacific  Coast 
it  became  necessary  for  the  United  States  to  appeal 
to  Colombia,  then  New  Granada,  for  a  free  passage 
through  her  territory  to  California,  which  otherwise 
could  only  be  reached  by  a  nine  months  voyage  round 
the  Horn,  or  by  the  even  more  dangerous  wagon-trail 
across  the  Rocky  Mountains  and  the  Western  Desert. 
The  United  States  secured  the  all  important  advanta- 
ges of  a  shorter  route  through  "A  Treaty  of  Peace, 
Amity,  Navigation  and  Commerce"  negotiated  in 
1846  in  which  it  was  proclaimed  as  follows: 

"The  Government  of  New  Granada  gua- 
rantees to  the  Government  of  the  United  Sta- 
tes that  the  right  of  way  or  transit  across  the 
Isthmus  of  Panama  upon  any  modes  of  trans- 
portation which  now  exist,  or  may  hereafter  be 
constructed,  shall  be  open  and  free  to  the  Gov- 
ernment and  Citizens  of  the  United  States,  and 
for  the  transportatoin  of  any  articles  of  lawful 

41 


commerce    belonging  to  the  citizens     of     the 
United  States." 

As  compensation  for  that  privilege — priceless  at 
that  time — the  United  States  promised  and  covenant- 
ed "as  an  especial  compensation  for  the  said  advan- 
tages'' and  for  the  favors  it  acquired  by  the  4th,  5th 
and  6th  articles  of  the  Treaty  (which  secured  to  the 
United  States  reciprocal  privileges  of  importation 
and  tonnage  dues  and  equal  customs  duties)  as  fol- 
lows: 

"The  United  States  guarantee  positively 
and  efficaciously,  to  New  Granada,  by  the  pre- 
sent stipulation,  the  perfect  neutrality  of  the 
beforementioned  Isthmus,  with  the  view  that 
the  free  transit  from  one  to  the  other  sea  may 
not  be  interrupted  or  embarrased  in  any  futu- 
re time  while  this  treaty  exists;  and  in  conse- 
quence the  United  States  also  guarantee  in  the 
same  manner  the  rights  of  sovereignty  and 
property  which  New  Granada  has  and  posses- 
ses over  the  said  territory." 

In  the  Message  in  which  President  Polk  submit- 
ted the  Treaty  to  the  Senate  of  the  United  States  for 
its  approval,  he  said  in  regard  to  the  right  of  transit 
thus  acquired: 

"The  importance  of  this  concession  to  the 
commercial  and  political  interest  of  the  United 
States  cannot  be  over-rated." 
Even  more  important  in  view  of  the  events  und- 
er consideration  is  President  Polk's  special  Message 

4a 


of  February  lo,  1847  i^  which  referring  to  the  initia- 
tion of  the  Treaty  he  said: 

"There  does  not  appear  any  other  effec- 
tual means  of  securing  to  all  nations  the  ad- 
vantages of  this  important  passage  but  the 
guarantee    of    great   commercial  powers  that 
the  Isthmus  shall  be  neutral  territory. . .  The 
guarantee  of  the  sovereignty  of  New  Granada 
is  a  natural  consequence  of  this. . .  New  Gra- 
nada would    not    yield    this    province  that  it 
might    become    a    neutral  State;    and  if  she 
should  it  is  not  sufficiently  populous  or  weal- 
thy to  establish  or  maintain  an  independent 
sovereignty." 
Thus  by  the  most  solemn  guarantee  known  to 
the  family  of  nations  the  United  States  pledged  itself 
by  express  contract  to  respect  and  uphold  the  sov- 
ereignty of  New  Granada  over  the  Isthmus  of  Pa- 
nama, a  plain  duty  already  due  to  New  Granada  und- 
er the  general  principles  of  international  law. 

In  emergencies  other  than  the  disturbance  of  in- 
teroceanic  transit,  or  peril  to  the  persons  and  posses- 
sions of  American  citizens,  there  might  be  no  inter- 
vention in  the  affairs  of  New  Granada,  re-established 
as  the  United  States  of  Colombia  in  1863.  By  the 
terms  of  the  treaty  and  by  the  principles  of  interna- 
tional law  Colombia,  as  the  sucessor  of  New  Grana- 
da, was  the  sovereign  peer  of  the  United  States 
which,  save  for  the  purpose  of  protecting  free  transit, 
might  no  more  land  forces  on  Colombian  soil,  or  even 
threaten  such  landing,  than  she  might  land  such  for- 
ces on  the  shores  of  France  or  England. 

43 


After  a  careful  examination  of  the  subject  I  can 
only  find  that  during  the  40  years  that  elapsed  bet- 
ween the  establishment  of  Colombia  in  1863  and  the 
Panama  imbroglio  in  1903,  United  States  forces  were 
employed  on  seven  occasions  and  for  a  total  of  164 
days.  In  every  case  they  were  employed  with  the  ex- 
press approval  of  Colombia  and  in  maintenance  of  her 
sovereignty.  In  no  case  was  there  any  fighting,  the 
mere  precautionary  measures  being  sufficient  to  keep 
open  the  transit. 


Any  violation  of  the  territorial  integrity  of  Co- 
lombia would  have  been  an  attack  upon  its  right  of 
existence  under  the  common  law  of  nations,  but  this 
violation  on  the  part  of  the  United  States  of  America 
was  not  only  a  violation  of  the  fundamental  principles 
of  international  law,  but  also  of  a  positive  right  sti- 
pulated by  contract  in  a  solemn  treaty. 

The  very  existence  of  Colombia  was  attacked  by 
the  very  power  which  had  guaranteed  her  sovereign- 
ty and  property  over  the  very  territory  taken.  Now, 
the  right  of  a  nation  to  exist,  and  consequently  to 
protect  conserve  and  develop  its  existence,  is  limited. 


as  we  have  seen,  by  the  reciprocal  rights  of  other  na- 
tions. 

Therefore,  as  expressed  by  the  Declaration  of 
the  Rights  of  Nations  proclaimed  by  the  American 
Institute  of  International  Law,  this  right  "neither 
implies  the  right  nor  justifies  the  act  of  the  State  to 
protect  itself  or  to  conserve  its  existence  by  the  com- 
mission of  unlawful  acts  against  innocent  and  unof- 
fending States." 

If  a  Nation  may  not  injure  the  rights  of  another 
on  the  grounds  of  necessity  to  its  own  existence, 
how  much  less  may  it  do  so  by  virtue  of  an  alleged 
mandate  of  the  community  of  nations  or  by  invok- 
ing in  error  the  interests  of  the  civilized  world — 
which  above  all  consist  in  the  supremacy  of  law  and 
of  justice  and  are  not  subject  to  the  arbitrary  determi- 
nation of  any  one  power. 

In  order  to  despoil  Colombia  there  was  put  for- 
ward a  supposed  interest  of  universal  civilization  in 
the  Panama  Canal,  the  overwhelming  importance  of 
the  opening  of  which  nobody  denied  and  above  all 
Colombia  who  had  furthered  it  in  every  possible  way. 
But  in  order  to  build  the  canal  it  was  not  necessary 
to  despoil  Colombia  of  the  Isthmus,  or  of  anything 
else. 

It  has  been  said  that  Colombia  showed  herself 
unyielding  in  the  conditions  which  she  placed  upon 
the  granting  of  the  concession.  But  from  the  very  in- 
itiation of  the  negotiations  in  Washington  for  the 
opening  of  the  Canal,  Colombia,  in  order  to  avoid  the 
allegations  which  it  has  since  been  sought  to  bring 

45 


forward,  proposed  that  the  price  of  the  concessions 
should  be  fixed  by  arbitration. 

This  statement  is  corroborated  by  the  following 
important  cable  sent  to  the  Consul  General  of  Co- 
lombia in  New  York  by  Dr.  Jose  Vicente  Concha  who 
was  Colombian  Minister  in  Washington  in  1901  and 
1902  and  is  now  the  President  of  Colombia: 

Bogota,  August  10,  1916. 

Francisco  Escobar. — New  York. 

By  Article  XXV  of  the  Memorandum 
presented  to  the  Department  of  State  on  April 
18,  1902  the  Colombian  Legation  proposed  to 
fix  by  means  of  arbitration  the  ammount  of  the 
annuity  to  be  paid  to  Colombia.  On  April  21, 
Secretary  Hay  accepted  this  proposal  and 
promised  to  sign  a  covenant  in  accordance  there 
with  but  on  July  18,  having  changed  his  mind, 
proposed  as  an  option  $7,000,000  on  final  agre- 
ement and  an  annuity  of  $100,000,  or  $10,000,- 
000  and  an  annuity  of  $10,000  instead  of  arbi- 
tration. The  Memorandum  was  published  with 
other  State  papers  by  said  Department. 

Concha. 

But  even  supposing  that  the  conditions  had  real- 
ly been  onerous  in  the  opinion  of  the  Government  of 
Washington;  Could  this  opinion,  in  a  matter  in  which 
it  was  an  interested  party,  give  it  the  right  to  despoil 
its  weaker  sister-republic? 

Professor  Albert  Hart  in  his  work  "The  Monroe 
Doctrine  and  its  Interpretaion",  commenting  upon 

46 


that  curious  mandate  of  civilization  which  is  urged  in 

justification  of  the  dismemberment  of  Colombia  says 

among  other  things: 

"The  situation  its  that  of  a  real  estate  owner 
who  needs  a  right  of  way  and  finds  that  his 
neighbor  demands  an  exhorbitant  figure.  In 
private  relations  the  wealthy  purchaser  must 
pay  the  price  or  go  without.  In  contests  bet- 
ween nations  the  stronger  has  often  ousted  the 
weaker  out  of  an  advantage  which  the  agres- 
sor  would  not  itself  give  up  except  as  the  pen- 
alty of  an  unsuccessful  war." 

"The  United  States  was  rather  hampered 
in  her  insistence  on  her  own  greater  need  as 
against  the  smaller  advantage  of  a  neighbor, 
for  just  at  this  time  we  refused  to  transfer  a 
few  posts  on  the  Alaskan  coast  to  Canada  that 
would  have  been  of  great  advantage  to  the 
Canadians  and  would  have  little  interfered 
with  our  interests-'' 
Another  American  writer,  Mr.  Scott,  speaking 

of  the  same  matter  in  his  book  "The  Americans  in 

Panama''  says: 

"The  rightful  owner  of  the  territory  we 
desired  for  a  canal  was  Colombia.  The  way  we 
took  it  was  to  participate  in  a  bogus  revolu- 
tion, engineered  by  a  junta  of  wealthy  Pana- 
mian  business  and  professional  men.  It  turn- 
ed out  that  the  part  they  played  in  making  the 
revolution  a  success  was  farcical,  while  the 
part  the  United  States  marines  played  was 
vital." 

47 


"If  any  American  railroad  should  desire 
property  for  a  right  of  way  and  instead  of  con- 
demning it  by  due  process  of  law,  should  con- 
nive with  a  neighbor  to  falsely  claim  posses- 
sion of  the  property  and  then  buy  the  property 
from  the  illegal  owner,  the  action  not  only 
would  not  stand  in  law  but  it  would  outrage 
public  opinion.  That  precisely  is  the  course  we 
pursued  at  Panama. 


The  second  and  third  rights  of  nations  proclaim- 
ed by  the  American  Institute  of  International  Law 
are  the  following: 

Every  nation  has  the  right  to  independ- 
ence in  the  sense  that  it  has  a  right  to  the  pur- 
suit of  happiness  and  is  free  to  develop  itself 
without  interference  or  control  from  other 
States,  provided  that  in  so  doing  it  does  not  in- 
terfere with  or  violate  the  just  rights  of  other 
States. 

Every  Nation  is  in  law  and  before  law  the 
equal  of  every  other  State  composing  the  so- 
ciety of  nations,  and  all  States  have  the  right 

48 


to  claim  and,  according  to  the  Declaration  of 
Independence  of  the  United  States,  to  assume, 
among  the  powers  of  the  earth,  the  separate 
and  equal  station  to  which  the  laws  of  nature 
and  of  natures  God  entitle  them. 

Mr.  J.  B.  Scott,  in  his  Comments  on  the  Declara- 
tion of  the  Rights  of  Nations,  says: 

''The  third  Article,  asserting  the  equality  of  na- 
tions is  followed  by  these  citations : 

'The  right  to  equality  is  to  be  understood 
in  the  sense  in  which  it  was  defined  in  the  fol- 
lowing passage  quoted  from  the  decision  of 
the  great  English  Admiralty  Judge,  Sir  Wil- 
liam Scott,  later  Lord  Stowell,  in  the  case  of 
the  Louis  (reported  in  2  Dodson's  Reports,  pp. 
212,  243-44)  decided  in  1817: 

*'Two  principles  of  public  law  are  general- 
ly recognized  as  fundamental.  One  is  the  per- 
fect equality  and  entire  independence  of  all 
distinct  States.  Relative  magnitude  creates 
no  distinction  of  right;  relative  imbecility, 
whether  permanent  or  casual,  gives  no  addi- 
tional right  to  the  more  powerful  neighbor; 
and  any  advantage  seized  upon  that  ground 
is  mere  usurpation.  This  is  the  great  founda- 
tion of  public  law,  which  it  mainly  concerns 
the  peace  of  mankind,  both  in  their  politic  and 
private  capacities,  to  preserve  inviolate. 

'The  second  is  that  all  nations  being  equal- 
all  have  an  equal  right  to  the  uninterupted 
use  of  the  unappropriated  parts  of  the  ocean 

49 


for  their  navigation.  In  places  where  no  local 
authority  exists,  where  the  subjects  of  all  Sta- 
tes meet  upon  a  footing  of  entire  equality  and 
independence,  no  one  State,  or  any  of  its  sub- 
jects, has  a  right  to  assume  or  exercise  autho- 
rity over  the  subjects  of  another/ 
''The  right  of  equality  is  also  to  be  understood  in 
the  sense  in  which  it  was  stated  and  illustrated  by 
John  Marshall,  Chief  Justice  of  the  Supreme  Court 
of  the  United  States  who  said  in  deciding  the  case  of 
the  Antelope  in  1825  (reported  in  10  Wheaton's  Re- 
ports, pp.  66,  122.) 

'In  this  commerce,  thus  sanctioned  by  uni- 
versal assent,  every  nation  has  an  equal  right 
to  engage.  How  is  this  right  to  be  lost?  Each 
may  renounce  it  for  its  own  people,  but  can  this 
renunciation  affect  others?" 

'No  principle  of  general  law  is  more  univ" 
ersally  acknowledged  than  the  perfect  equali- 
ty of  nations.  Russia  and  Geneva  have  equal 
rights.  It  results  from  this  equality  that  no 
one  can  rightfully  impose  a  rule  on  another. 
Each  legislates  for  itself,  but  its  legislation  can 
operate  on  itself  alone.  A  right  then  which  is 
vested  in  all,  by  the  consent  of  all,  can  be  di- 
vested only  by  consent,  and  this  (slave)  trade 
in  which  all  have  participated,  must  remain 
lawful  to  those  who  cannot  be  induced  to  relin- 
quish it.  As  no  nation  can  prescribe  a  rule  for 
others,  none  can  make  a  law  of  nations,  and 
this  traffic  remains  lawful  to  those  whose  gov- 
ernments have  not  forbidden  it.' 


50 


The  rights  of  independence  and  equality,  which 
as  we  have  pointed  out  are  but  a  corollary  of  the  right 
to  exist  and  to  conserve  and  protect  its  existence, 
which  every  nation  has,  are  co-relative  to  the  duty  of 
the  other  nations  not  to  interfere  in  its  internal  af- 
fairs or  in  its  interiiational  relations,  and  to  respect 
in  their  dealings  with  it  the  universally  accepted  prin- 
ciples of  international  law. 

These  two  rights  were  plainly  violated  by  the 
government  of  the  United  States  in  its  dealings  with 
the  Government  of  Colombia  when  the  secession  of 
Panama  was  being  prepared  and  carried  out,  in  this 
wise: 

Let  us  consider  the  pressure  exerted  upon  the 
Government  and  Congress  of  Colombia  in  order  to 
force  the  approval  of  the  Treaty  for  the  construction 
of  the  canal,  signed  in  Washington  in  1903,  and 
known  as  the  Herran-Hay  Treaty. 

The  Memorandum  of  the  13th  of  June,  1903, 
handed  by  the  Minister  of  the  United  States  in  Bo- 
gota, Mr.  Beaupre,  to  the  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs 
of  Colombia  was  an  insult  to  the  sovereignty  of 
Colombia  and  a  virtual  negation  of  her  independ- 
ence and  equality.  This  Memorandum  placed  the  Co- 
lombian Senate  in  a  position  where  it  could  not  do  less 
than  to  reject  absolutely  the  attempted  dictation. 
This  is  the  text  of  the  Memorandum: 

''I  have  received  instructions  from  my 
Government  by  cable  in  the  sense  that  the 
Government  of  Colombia  to  all  appearances 
does  not  appreciate  the  gravtiy  of  the  situa- 
tion. The  Panama    Canal    negotiations  were 

51 


initiated  by  Colombia  and  were  earnestly  so- 
licited of  my  Government  for  several  years. 
Propositions  presented     by     Colombia     with 
slight  alterations  were  finally  accepted  by  us. 
By  virtue  of  this  agreement  our  Congress  re- 
considered its  previous    decision  and  decided 
in  favor  of  the  Panama  route.     If     Colombia 
now  rejects  the  Treaty  or  unduly  delays  its  ra- 
tification the  friendly  relations  between   the 
two  countries  would  be  so  seriously  compro- 
mised that  our  Congress  might  next  winter 
take    steps  that    every    friend    of    Colombia 
would  regret  with  sorrow. 
The  refusal  to  recognize  the  constitutional  right 
or  the  Colombian  Senate  to  ratify  or  to  reject  a  pub- 
lic treaty  as  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  and  in 
general  of  any  country  having    a    democratic    and 
representative  from  of  government,  might  do,  was 
equivalent  to  a  refusal  to  recognize  the  independ- 
ence of  Colombia  and  its  equality  with  the  United 
States  and  other  nations. 

It  is  most  noteworthy  that  the  very  people  who 
have  most  bitterly  attacked  Colombia  for  the  rejec- 
tion of  the  Hay-Herran  Treaty  and  who  have  most 
freely  criticized  the  Colombian  Senate  for  its  ac- 
tion are  those  who  are  showing  the  greatest  activity 
to  prevent  the  Senate  of  the  United  States  from 
ratifying  the  Urrutia-Thompson  treaty  signed  in 
Bogota  on  April  6,  1914. 

Promoting  the  work  of  separation  on  the  Isth- 
mus, giving  to  it  material  and  moral  aid,  and  gua- 
ranteeing its  results,  was  to  do  to  Colombia  what 


Colombia  could  not  have  done  in  its  relations  with 
any  other  country  without  provoking  in  reprisal  a 
state  of  war.  It  was  reducing  the  equality  of  nations 
to  a  bitter  irony. 

Supporting  the  secession  after  its  initial  procla- 
mation, with  all  the  national  power  of  the  United 
States,  and  recognizing  a  new  State  which  did  not 
have  any  real  existence,  was  to  strike  a  blow  at  the 
fundamental  principles  of  International  Law  and  to 
introduce  into  the  history  of  diplomacy  new  prin- 
ciples and  practices  which  could  not  even  have  been 
hinted  at,  much  less  enunciated,  between  equal  na- 
tions. Not  only  was  Colombia  not  dealt  with  as  a  na- 
tion having  equal  rights  with  other  nations,  but  a 
special  proceeding  was  taken  against  her,  she  was 
dealt  v/ith  in  an  exceptional  manner,  the  very  form 
of  which  was  insulting. 

Even  supposing  that  there  had  been  a  real  re- 
volution and  that  the  uprising  had  extended  to  the 
remainder  of  the  Isthmus — which  certainly  was  not 
the  case — it  would  be  difficult  to  deny  that  the  pre- 
mature recognition  by  the  United  States  of  the  ind- 
ependence of  the  alleged  new  State  would  have  been 
contrary  not  only  to  the  best  recognized  principles 
and  practices  of  international  law,  but  contrary  to 
the  established  precedents  and  inviolable  rules  fol- 
lowed by  the  United  States  itself  in  its  dealings  with 
other  nations.  In  the  case  of  Colombia,  there  was  the 
further  specific  contract  by  which  her  rights  of 
sovereignty  and  property  over  the  Isthmus  were 
guaranteed  for  all  time  by  the  United  States  itself. 


53 


The  new  States  which  were  formed  in  the  Span- 
ish American  colonies  could  not  obtain  recognition 
as  such  by  the  United  States  until  more  than  two 
decades  after  the  initiation  of  the  revolution  against 
the  mother-country  and  only  after  the  revolution 
had  finally  triumphed  after  a  legendary  and  heroic 
struggle  such  as  there  had  rarely  been  in  the  history 
of  the  world,  in  no  wise  to  be  compared  even  with 
the  farcical  secession  of  Panama. 

From  1810  to  1822,  various  agents  of  the  new 
nations  which  had  been  formed  in  the  emancipated 
Spanish  colonies  went  to  Washington  to  endeavor 
to  obtain  the  recognition  of  their  independence  by 
the  United  States;  but  the  American  government, 
despite  the  genuine  sympathy  with  which  it  looked 
#  upon  the  cause  of  liberty  represented  by  the  indep- 
endence movement  in  South  America  , invariably  abs- 
tained from  receiving  its  agents  officially.  In  1818 
Henry  Clay  endeavoured  in  his  memorable  speeches 
in  the  House  of  Representatives  to  accelerate  the 
recognition  of  the  new  States,  but  President  Mon- 
roe, his  cabinet,  and  specially  Secretary  of  State 
John  Quincy  Adams,  remained  inflexible  in  their 
strict  regard  for  the  sovereignty  of  Spain.  In  his 
celebrated  letter  of  August  24,  1818,  to  President 
Monroe,  referring  to  this  matter  Secretary  of  State 
Adams  very  clearly  and  forcefully  expressed  the 
true  international  doctrine  bearing  upon  the  recogn- 
ition of  a  new  State,  the  very  crux  of  which  is  that 
recognition  can  only  be  lawfully  accorded  when 
without  foreign   intervention  virtually   every   prob- 

54 


ability  of  the  former  sovereign  being  able  to  restore 
his  authority  has  disappeared. 

It  was  only  in  1822  that  President  Monroe  de- 
cided to  recognize  the  independence  of  the  new  Sta- 
tes and  that  in  his  Message  of  March  8,  1822,  he 
stated  the  position  of  the  United  States  as  follows: 
'';This  contest  has  now  reached  such  a 
stage  and  been  attended  with  such  decisive 
success  on  the  part  of  the  provinces  that  it 
merits  the  most  profound  consideration  whe- 
ther their  right  to  the  rank  of  independent  na- 
tions with  all  the  advantages  incident  to  it  in 
their  intercourse  with  the  United  States  is  not 
complete.  Buenos  Ayres  assumed  that  rank  by 
a  formal  declaration  in  1816  and  has  enjoyed 
it  since  1810  free  from  invasion  by  the  parent 
country.  The  provinces  composing  the  Repub- 
lic of  Colombia  after  having  separately  declar- 
ed their  independence  were  united  by  a  funda- 
mental law  of  the  17th  of  December  1819-  A 
strong  Spanish  force  occupied  at  that  time 
certain  parts  of  the  territory  within  their  li- 
mits and  waged  a  destructive  war;  that  force 
has  since  been  repeatedly  defeated  and  the 
whole  of  it  either  made  prisoners  or  destroyed 
or  expelled  from  the  country  with  the  excep- 
tion of  an  inconsiderable  portion  only  which 
is  blocaded  in  two  fortresses.  The  provinces 
of  the  Pacific  have  likewise  been  very  succes- 
sful. Chile  declared  independence  in  1818  and 
has  since  enjoyed  it  undisturbed,  and  of  late 
by  the  assistance  of  Chile  and  Buenos  Ayres 

55 


the  revolution  has  extended  to  Peru.  Of  the 
movement  in  Mexico  our  information  is  less 
authentic  but  it  is  nevertheless  distinctly  un- 
derstood that  the  new  Government  has  de- 
clared its  independence  and  that  there  is  now 
no  opposition  to  it  there  nor  a  force  to  make 
any.  For  the  last  there  years  the  Government 
of  Spain  has  not  sent  a  single  corps  of  troops 
to  any  part  of  that  country,  nor  is  there  any 
reason  to  believe  it  will  send  any  in  the  future. 
Thus  it  is  manifest  that  all  those  provinces  are 
not  only  in  the  full  enjoyment  of  their  indep- 
endence but,  considering  the  state  of  the  war 
and  other  circumstances,  that  there  is  not  the 
most  remote  prospect  of  their  being  deprived 

of  it." 
After  the  independence  of  the  Spanish  colonies 
had  been  recognized  Secretary  of  State  Adams,  ans- 
wering the  protest  of  the  Spanish  Minister,  said  in 
his  Note  of  April  6,  1822: 

"In  every  question  relating  to  the  indep- 
endence of  a  nation  two  principles  are  involv- 
ed: one  of  right  and  the  other  of  fact;  the 
former  exclusively  depending  upon  the  deter- 
mination of  the  nation  itself,  and  the  other 
resulting  from  the  successful  execution  of 
that  determination.  This  right  has  recently 
been  exercised  as  well  by  the  Spanish  nation 
in  Europe  as  by  several  of  those  countries  in 
the  Western  Hemisphere  which  had  for  two 
or  three  centuries  been  connected  as  colonies 
with  Spain.  In  the  conflicts  which  have  at- 

56 


tended  these  revolutions,  the  United  States 
have    carefuly    abstained    from    taking    any 
part  respecting  the  right  of  the  nations  con- 
cerned in  them  to  maintain  or  newly  organize 
their  own  political  constitutions  and  observ- 
ing, wherever  it  was  a  contest  by  arms,  the 
most  impartial  neutrality.  But  the  civil  war 
in  which  Spain  was  for  some  years  involved 
with  the  inhabitants  of  her  colonies  in  Ame- 
rica has,  in  substance,  ceased  to  exist.  Treaties 
equivalent  to  an  acknowledgment  of  indep- 
endence have  been  concluded    by    the    com- 
manders and  vice-roys  of  Spain  with  the  Rep- 
ublic of  Colombia,  with  Mexico  and  with  Pe- 
ru; while  in  the  province  of  La  Plata  and  in 
Chile  no  Spanish  force  has  for  several  years 
existed  to  dispute  the  independence  which  the 
inhabitants  of  those  countries  had  declared.'' 
An  examination  of  the  many  noteworthy  cases 
in  which  the  Government  of  Washington  has  main- 
tained with  inflexible  determination  laws,  principles 
and  practices  in  absolute  contradiction  to  the  acts  it 
was  guilty  of  in  1903  against  the  rights  of  Colombia 
and  by  which  the  United  States  ignored  the  indep- 
endence and  equal  station  of  my  country.  But  for 
their  historical  importance  reference  must    be  made 
to  a  few  documents  of  great  value. 

In  the  course  of  the  Civil  War  in  the  United  Sta- 
tes, Secretary  of  State  Seward,  anxious  to  prevent 
any  foreign  government  from  recognizing  not  only 
the  independence  but  even  the  existence  as  belliger- 
ents    of    the    States    which    had  seceded  from  the 

57 


Union,  instructed  the  diplomatic  representatives  of 
the  United  States  abroad  to  oppose  any  such  action. 
In  his  circular  instructions  he  wrote: 

"To  recognize  the  independence  of  a  new 
State  and  so  favor  and  possibly  determine  its 
admission  into  the  family  of  nations  is  the 
highest  possible  exercise  of  sovereign  power 
because  it  affects  in  any  case  the  welfare  of 
two  nations  and  often  the  peace  of  the  world. 
In  the  Europan  system  this  power  is  now 
seldom  attempted  to  be  exercised  without  in- 
voking a  consultation  or  Congress  of  nations. 
That  system  has  not  been  extended  to  this 
continent-  But  there  is  an  even  greater  neces- 
sity for  prudence  in  such  cases  in  regard  to 
American  States  than  in  regard  to  the  nations 
of  Europe.  A  revolutionary  change  of  dynas- 
ty, or  even  a  disorganization  or  recombina- 
tion of  one  or  many  states,  therefore  do  not 
long  or  deeply  affect  the  general  interest  of 
society  because  the  ways  of  trade  and  habits 
of  society  remain  the  same.  But  a  radical 
change  effected  in  the  political  combinations 
existing  on  the  continent,  followed  as  probab- 
ly would  be  by  moral  convulsions  of  incalcu- 
lable magnitude,  would  threaten  the  stability 
of  society  throughout  the  world. 

''Humanity  has  indeed  little  to  hope  for  if 
it  shall,  in  the  age  of  high  improvement,  be 
decided  without  a  trial  that  the  principles  of 
moral  persons,  bound  so  to  act  as  to  do  each 
other  the  least  injury  and  the  most  good  is 

58 


merely  an  abstraction  too  refined  to  be  reduc- 
ed into  practice  by  the  englihtened  nations  of 
Western  Europe.     Seen  in  the  light  of  this 
principle  the  several  nations  of  the  earth  cons- 
titute one  great  Federal  Republic.  When  one 
of  them  casts  its  suffrages  for  the  admission 
of  a  new  member  into  the  Republic,  it  ought 
to  act  under  a  profound  sense  of  moral  obli- 
gation and  be  governed  by  considerations  as 
pure,  disinterested  and  elevated  as  the  gen- 
eral interest  of  society  and  the  advancement 
of  human  nature." 
In  his  Message     of     December,  1875,  President 
Grant  sustained  the  same  principles  in  his  reference 
to  the  possible  recognition  of  Cuba  as  an  independ- 
ent nation. 

What  would  the  United  States  have  thought  of 
the  act  of  a  friendly  nation — a  friendly  and  an  allied 
nation — which  in  violation  of  the  principles  asserted 
in  the  foregoing  documents  would  have  recognized 
any  of  the  States  which  seceded  from  the  Union  as 
an  independent  and  sovereign  nation. 

The  traditional  principles  of  American  diploma-* 
cy  are  fixed  and  lasting — they  were  only  departed 
from  on  the  day  when  it  was  desired  to  despoil  Co- 
lombia, the  friendly  nation  and  sister  Republic, 
which  had  been  the  first  of  the  Latin  American  na- 
tions recognized  by  the  United  States  and  was  bound 
by  a  solemn  Treaty. 

Colombia  was  thrust  beyond  the  pale  of  inter- 
national law.  Nothing  counted  except  the  bolster- 
ing up  of  the  fake  secession,  with  the  support  before 

55 


the  act  of  the  naval  forces  of  the  United  States,  and 
so  a  few  hours  after  the  declaration  of  independence 
by  a  handful  of  men  in  the  city  of  Panama,  the  Co- 
lombian Department  of  the  Isthmus  was  raised  in 
Washington  to  the  status  of  a  sovereign  Nation;  and 
a  foreigner^who  had  held  a  position  in  the  canal  com- 
pany— was  invested  with  diplomatic  dignity  by  cable 
and  received  by  the  Presdient  of  the  United  States 
as  the  Minister  of  the  unfledged  state. 


The  fourth  and  fifth  Rights  of  Nations  proclaim- 
ed by  the  American  Institute  of  International  Law 
were  the  following: 

4.  Every  Nation  has  the  right  to  territory 
within  defined  boundaries  and  to  exercise  ex- 
clusive jurisdiction  over  this  territory  and  all 
persons  whether  native  or  foreign  found  there- 
in. 

5'  Every  nation  entitled  to  a  right  by  the 
law  of  nations  is  entitled  to  have  that  right 
respected  by  all  other  nations,  for  right  and 
duty  are  corelative,  and  the  right  of  one  is  the 
duty  of  all  to  observe. 

60 


The  jurisdiction  of  the  nation  within  its  own  ter- 
ritory, is  necessarily  exclusive  and  absolute;  it  is  sus- 
ceptible of  no  limitations  not  imposed  by  itself.  Any 
restriction  upon  it  deriving  validity  from  an  external 
source,  would  imply  a  diminution  of  its  sovereignty, 
to  the  extent  of  the  restriction,  and  an  investment 
of  that  sovereignty,  to  the  same  extent,  in  that  pow- 
er which  could  impose  such  restriction.  All  excep- 
tion, therefore,  to  the  full  and  complete  power  of  a 
nation,  within  its  own  territories  must  be  traced  up 
to  the  consent  of  the  nation  itself.  They  can  flow 
from  no  other  legitimate  source. 

Under  the  right  of  exclusive  jurisdiction  over  all 
the  inhabitants  of  its  territory,  the  State  has  supre- 
me authority  to  subdue  and  punish,  by  force  of  arms, 
any  seditious  movement  occuring  within  its  territo- 
ry. 

Under  the  right  of  territorial  ownership,  the 
State  has  supreme  authority  to  maintain,  by  force  of 
arms,  its  territorial  integrity.  Nevertheless,  on  Nov- 
ember 2,  1903,  the  day  before  the  so-called  independ- 
ence of  Panama  was  "proclaimed".  President  Roo- 
sevelt ordered  the  commander  of  the  U.  S.  S.  Nash- 
ville to  "prevent  the  landing  of  any  armed  force  with 
hostile  intent,  either  Government  or  insurgent,  either 
at  Colon,  Porto  Bello  or  other  port. . ." 

On  the  same  day,  November  2,  1903,  the  prin- 
ciple of  international  law  above  stated  which  forbids 
a  State  arbitrarily  to  intervene  in  the  acts  of  sovere- 
ignty, sent  her  military  forces  to  Panama  for  the 
purpose  of  crushing,  by  force  of  arms,  the  rumored 

61 


uprising  which,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  did  break  out  on 
the  following  day,  November  3,  1903. 

By  the  orders  of  President  Roosevelt  the  regular 
naval  forces  of  the  United  States  prevented  the  for- 
ces of  the  Republic  of  Colombia  from  landing  and 
acting  within  the  legitimate  territorial  jurisdiction 
of  Colombia.  By  so  doing  President  Roosevelt  inter- 
vened in  the  internal  affairs  of  Colombia  and  violat- 
ed her  sovereignty.  Such  an  act  of  armed  interven- 
tion is  an  act  of  war,  tantamout  in  every  way  to  a 
declaration  of  war,  under  the  accepted  provisions  of 
international  law. 

Judged  by  the  principles  of  the  Constitution  of 
the  United  States, — a  declaration  of  war  being  a  po- 
litical act  the  exercise  of  which  is  vested  exclusively 
in  Congress  and  not  in  the  President  (Article  i,  Sec- 
tion 8  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States), — 
the  act  of  President  Roosevelt  was  an  arbitary  act 
without  any  lawful  authority  nor  based  on  any  legal 
reason,  and  a  clear  violation  of  the  Constitution. 

The  last  Right  of  Nations  enunciated  by  the 
American  Institute  of  International  Law  is  self- 
explanatory,  as  there  can  be  no  rights  without  cor- 
responding duties-  Aplied  to  the  case  of  Colombia 
it  means  that  all  of  Colombia's  rights  as  a  sovere- 
ing  nation  imposed  corresponding  duties  upon  the 
other  nations. 


62 


THE  REPARATION  DUE 
TO  COLOMBIA 


THE  REPARATION  DUE  TO  COLOMBIA 

The  violation  of  the  rights  of  Colombia  and  the 
consequent  dismemberment  of  her  territory  caused 
moral  and  material  damages  which  are  really  incal- 
culable. 

The  possession  of  the  Isthmus  of  Panama  gave 
to  Colombia  exceptional  geographical,  economic  and 
political  advantages.  The  standing  of  Colombia  as  a 
Nation  is  no  longer  the  same  since  the  loss  of  the 
Isthmus. 

This  privileged  strip  of  land  was  considered  the 
most  valuable  on  the  American  continent  and  one 
of  the  most  valuable  in  the  world,  ever  since  the 
Kings  of  Spain  exercised  sovereignty  over  it.  The  ter- 
ritory of  the  Audiencia  of  Panama  was  the  most 
precious  jewel  if  the  dominions  of  Spain  in  America. 

When  the  possible  purchase  of  Lower  Califor- 
nia from  Mexico  has  been  considered  in  the  United 
States  the  land  has  generally  been  valued  at  Two 
Hundred  Million  Dollars.  The  territory  of  the  Co- 
lombian Department  of  Panama  is  worth  a  great  deal 
more  than  Lower  California  on  account  of  its  excep" 
tional  situation. 

The  damages  suffered  by  Colombia  can  be 
measured  neither  morally  nor  materially.  For  many 
excellent  reasons,  and  in  order  to  obviate  the  pos- 

«5 


sibility  of  charges  similar  to  those  brought  when  the 
Hay-Herran  treaty  was  negotiated,  Colombia  pro- 
posed, from  the  very  moment  of  the  secession  of  Pa- 
nama, that  the  question  of  damages  should  be  fixed 
by  the  Hague  Tribunal  or  any  other  court  of  arbitra- 
tion. 

It  was  only  because  of  the  anxious  persistency 
of  the  Government  of  the  United  States,  and  of  the 
desire  to  do  justice  to  Colombia  which  animated  its 
present  Chief  Magistrate  and  Secretary  of  State 
Bryan  ,that  Colombia  consented  to  suspend  her  ef- 
forts to  obtain  arbitration  and  entered  into  direct 
negotiations  which  culminated  in  the  Treaty  signed 
on  April  6,  1914  in  Bogota. 

By  this  treaty  an  indemnity  of  Twenty  Five  Mil- 
lion Dollars  was  agreed  upon,  and  it  is  a  very  small 
sum  compared  to  the  damage  inflicted.  It  is  true  that 
the  Committee  on  Foreign  Relations  of  the  United 
States  Senate,  in  reporting  out  the  Treaty,  proposed 
to  reduce  the  indemnity  by  Ten  Millions.  The  Gov- 
ernment and  the  people  of  Colombia  only  accepted 
the  Twenty  Five  Millions  from  an  honest  desire  to 
put  an  end  to  the  vexatious  and  prejudicial  contro- 
versy and  to  shovr  its  goodwill  towards  the  Wilson 
administration.  The  Urrutia-Thompson  Treaty  was 
bitterly  attacked  in  Colombia  from  the  day  it  was 
signed.  It  is  impossible  to  express  the  painful  sur- 
prise which  the  action  of  the  Committee  on  Foreign 
Relations  must  have  caused  among  a  people  as  proud 
as  the>  are  patriotic. 

66 


The  claims  of  Colombia  have  been  described  as 
blackmail,  but  truly  it  is  an  usual  case  of  blackmail 
when  the  party  accused  of  this  crime  has  continually 
begged,  without  however  being  able  to  obtain,  that 
the  issue  be  decided  by  arbitration- 

In  order  that  some  idea  may  be  formed  of  the 
material  damages  inflicted  upon  Colombia  merely  by 
the  taking  of  the  Panama  Railroad,  and  the  annui- 
ties due  under  its  contract  and  under  the  canal  con- 
tract we  submit  the  following  facts  taken  from  the 
Memorandum  which  the  United  States  Minister  in 
Bogota,  Mr.  James  T.  DuBois,  the  eminent  diploma- 
tist sent  by  the  Taft  Administration  to  effect  a  set' 
tlement  of  the  existing  controversy,  presented  to  the 
Government  of  Colombia  in  February,  1913.  This 
Memorandum,  in  part  referring  to  the  Panama  Rail- 
road, reads  as  follows: 

REVERSIONARY  RIGHTS  IN  THE  PANAMA  RAILROAD 


"Notwihstanding  the  fact  that  the  United  Sta- 
tes believes  that  these  rights  passed  to  Panama  at 
the  time  of  its  secession,  and  notwithstanding  the 
fact  that  the  United  States  has  already  paid  Pa- 
nama for  these  rights,  nevertheless  animated  by  a 
sincere  desire  to  renew  an  old  friendship,  the  alter- 
ation of  which  it  deeply  regrets,  the  United  States 
is  ready  to  submit  to  arbitration  the  controversy 
with  Colombia  referring  to  the  legal  claim  wich 
she  maintains  she  possesses  to  the  reversionary 
rights  in  the  Panama  Railroad.  Colombia  has  al- 

67 


"  ways  asked,  with  the  greatest  insistence,  ever  since 
"  the  moment  of  the  secession  of  Panama,  that  the 
"  whole  matter  be  taken  to  the  Hague  Tribunal,  but 
"  as  the  United  States,  in  accordance  with  the  line  of 
"  conduct  followed  by  all  the  Great  Powers,  positiv- 
"  ely  refuses  to  submit  any  of  its  political  acts  to  arbi- 
"  tration,  for  this  reason  it  has  been  impossible  to  * 
"  comply  with  Colombia's  desires  in  this  matter.  The 
"  Government  of  the  United  States  however,  taking 
"  into  acount  the  justiciable  character  of  the  differen- 
"  ces  of  opinion  as  to  the  material  claims  of  Colom- 
''  bia  is  disposed  to  submit  these  claims  to  a  tribunal 
'^  of  arbitration  to  be  appointed  for  this  purpose  in 
"  accordance  with  a  convention  which  will  clearly 
''  specify  the  points  to  be  passed  upon.  This  decision 
"  will  without  doubt  be  received  with  favor  by  the 
"  Government  and  people  of  Colombia  all  the  more 
"  so  as  it  is  generally  believed  that  the  claim  refer- 
''  ring  to  the  rights  of  Colombia  in  the  Panama  Rail- 
''  road  is  perfectly  legal  and  just.  Under  the  contract 
"  of  1867  Colombia  ceded  the  transisthmian  railroad 
"  to  the  Panama  Railroad  Company  for  a  period  of 
"  99  years  for  an  annual  payment  of  $250,000.  When 
"  these  payments  were  stopped  on  account  of  the 
"  secession,  the  contract  still  had  64  years  to  run, 
"  that  is  to  say,  there  were  still  pending  64  annuities 
"  of  $250,000  the  total  value  of  which  amounted  to 
"$16,000,000.  This  claim  might  be  submitted,  with 
"  the  previous  consent  of  both  parties,  to  arbitration. 
"  As  Senator  Bristow  reported  officially  in  1906  that 
"  the  Panama  Railroad  was  worth  $16,446,000  the  to- 

66 


"  tal  amount  of  the  claim  which  might  be  submitted 
"  to  arbitration  would  rise  to  $32,446-000.  In  addition 
"  to  this  sum  there  is  the  amount  entailed  by  the  Sal- 
"  gar-Wyse  Concession  which  expires  in  1984  and 
"  under  it  Colombia  was  to  receive  $250,000  a  year 
"  counting  from  the  date  of  the  opening  of  the  canal. 
"  If  the  canal  be  opened  to  service  in  the  coming  year 
"  we  should  have  owing  to  Colombia  seventy  annui" 
"  ties,  that  is  to  say,  $17,500,000.  If  the  tribunal  of 
"  arbitration  considers  this  further  claim  the  total 
"  sum  would  amount  to  $49,946,000." 

Moreover,  Minister  Dubois  suggested  that  the 
United  States  was  disposed  to  offer  ten  millions 
"  without  insisting  on  the  option  for  the  opening  of 
"  the  Atrato  Canal  but  allowing  the  other  proposals 
''  to  stand." 

"All  of  which  means  the  possibility  for  Colombia 
to  obtain  Sixty  Millions  as  a  compesation  for  the 
losses  she  suffered  through  the  secession  of  Panama." 

It  is  also  well  to  point  out  that  even  under  the 
Hay-Herran  Treaty  of  January  1903  which  was  re- 
jected by  the  Colombian  Senate,  Colombia  retained 
her  full  rights  of  sovereignty  and  property  over  the 
Isthmus  of  Panama,  and  that  for  the  sole  right  which 
the  Treaty  conferred  to  the  United  States  to  con- 
struct the  canal  and  occupy  the  canal  zone,  Colom- 
bia was  to  receive  a  sum  much  in  excess  of  Twenty 
Five  Million  Dollars." 

''By  Article  XV  of  the  Hay-Herran  Treaty  the 
Government  of  the  United  States  bound  itself  to  pay 
to  Colombia  the  sum  of  $10,000,000  and  an  annual 

69 


payment  during  the  life  of  the  convention,  which 
was  fixed  at  lOO  years,  of  $250,000  a  year.  This  meant 
a  cash  payment  of  $10,000,000  and  $25,000,000  more 
in  annual  payments.  In  all  $35,000,000- 

"Besides  in  Article  XVII  it  was  further  stipulat- 
ed that  Colombia  should  have  the  right  to  transport 
over  the  canal  its  vessels,  troops  and  munitions  of 
war  at  all  times  without  paying  charges  of  any  kind. 


In  his  memorable  speech  in  the  United  States  Se- 
nate, March  i,  191 2,  the  eminent  Senator  from  Ne- 
braska Mr.  Hitchcock,  appreciated  the  damages  of 
Colombia  as  follows: 

"I  have  been  told,  and  it  has  been  suggest- 
ed to  me,  that  if  arbitrated,  probably  the  mea- 
sure of  Colombia  damages  would  be  so  great 
that  it  would  appal  the  American  people;  that 
damages  would  not  be  confined  simply  to  the 
payment  of  $10,000,000  which  we  once  offered, 
and  the  annuity  of  $250,000  a  year  in  perpetui- 
ty, because  that  provided  only  for  the  Pana- 
ma strip  for  the  Canal,  whereas,  as  a  matter 
of  fact,  our  act  deprived  Colombia  not  only  of 
the  Canal  strip,  but  deprived  her  of  all  the  Pro- 
vince. Perhaps  if  that  it  so,  possibly  the 
damages  would  not  be  limited  to  $10,000,000 
or  $15,000,000  or  $50,000,000;  they  may  go  to 

70 


$100,000,000  or  more;  but  because  the  damage 
is  great  and  because  a  Court  of  Arbitration 
might  award  the  people  of  Colombia  such  en- 
ormous damages  is  no  reason  for  us  to  shrink 
from  paying  the  penality  of  our  act.  I  do  no 
believe  that  the  American  people,  who  are  a 
highly   moral    people,    a    highly   just    people, 
would  shrink  from  paying  to  the  last  cent  that 
penalty  which  a  Court  of  Arbitration  might 
award.'' — Congressional  record.  March  i,  1912. 
Taking  these  facts  into  account  it  will  be  readily 
seen  that  the  $25,000,000  agreed  upon  in  the  Urrutia- 
Thompson  treaty  is  really  a  very  inadequate  indem- 
nity in  comparison  to  the  great  damages  sustained 
by  Colombia. 

When  the  Alabama  controversy  between  Eng- 
land and  the  United  States  was  submitted  to  the  Gen- 
eva Arbitration  the  indemnity  that  the  former  was 
ordered  to  pay  merely  for  the  depredations  of  the 
Albama  amounted  to  $15,000,000-  It  is  hardly  con- 
ceivable that  those  damages  should  be  comparable 
to  those  inflicted  upon  Colombia  by  the  loss  of 
the  most  valuable  portion  of  her  territory,  carried  out 
through  the  action  of  American  warships,  like  the 
Nashville  and  the  Dixie,  and  by  the  exercise  of  the 
power  of  the  United  States. 

The  truth  is  that  on  calm  examination  no  expla- 
nation can  be  found  for  the  reduction  proposed  by 
the  Senate  Committee  on  Foreign  Relations.  Indeed 
it  is  even  more  extraordinary  in  view  of  other  cir- 
cumstances such  as  the  incalculable  political,  milita- 
ry and  commercial  value  of  the  Panama  canal  to  the 

71 


United  States  and  also  the  overwhelming  prosperity 
which  this  Republic  enjoys  and  in  the  increase  of 
which  the  Panama  canal  is  an  essential  factor. 

President  Wilson's  speech  in  Washington  on 
April  13  contained  the  following  important  passage: 
"As  I  have  listened  to  some  of  the  spe- 
eches to-nigth  the  great  feeling  has  come  into 
my  heart  that  we  are  better  prepared  than  we 
ever  were  before  to  show  how  America  can 
lead  the  way  along  the  paths  of  light.  Take 
the  single  matter  of  financial  statistics,  of 
which  we  have  only  recently  become  precisely 
informed;  the  mere  increase  in  the  resources 
of  the  national  banks  of  the  United  States  ex- 
ceed the  total  resources  of  the  Deutscher 
Reichbank,  and  the  aggregate  resources  of 
the  national  banks  of  the  United  States  exce- 
ed by  three  thousand  millions  the  aggregate 
resources  of  the  Bank  of  England,  the  Bank 
of  France,  the  Bank  of  Russia,  the  Reichbank 
in  Berlin,  the  Bank  of  the  Netherlands,  the 
Bank  of  Switzerland  and  the  Bank  of  Japan. 
Under  the  provincial  conceptions  of  the  repub- 
lican party  this  would  have  been  impossible. 
Under  the  world  conceptions  of  those  of  us 
who  are  proud  to  follow  the  traditions  of  Tho- 
mas Jefferson  it  has  been  realized  in  fact,  and 
the  question  we  have  to  put  to  ourselves  it  this, 
"How  are  we  going  to  use  this  power?" 


72 


Referring  again  to  the  Alabama  Case  and  to 
the  treaty  of  May  8,  1871,  between  England  and  the 
United  States,  it  will  be  seen  that  the  latter  has  an 
important  bearing  upon  another  suggestion  of  the 
Senate  Committee  on  Foreign  Relations  in  connec- 
tion with  the  Urrutia-Thompson  treaty.  The  Com- 
mittee did  not  favor  the  expression  of  regret  contain- 
ed therein  towards  a  weak  and  defenceless  Republic, 
but  such  an  expression  of  regret  was  found  possible 
and  proper  in  the  case  of  one  of  the  great  powers  of 
the  world  and  was  written  into  one  of  the  most  im- 
portant and  best  known  treaties  in  the  history  of 
XIX  Century  dimplomacy. 

Such  an  expression  of  regret  was  found  also  in 
many  solemn  documents  of  contemporary  diplo- 
matic history.  The  last  we  know  is  the  note  of  the 
German  Government  offering  reparation  to  the  Unit- 
ed States  for  the  attack  upon  the  steamboat  Sussex. 
This  note  says  as  follows. 

"In  view  of  these  circumstances  the  Ger- 
man government  frankly  admits  that  the  as- 
surance given  to  the  American  government,  in 
accordance  with  which  passenger  vessels  were 
not  to  be  attacked  without  warning,  has  not 
been  adhered  to  in  the  present  case.  As  was 
intimated  by  the  undersigned  in  the  note  of 
the  4th  inst.  the  German  government  does  not 
hesitate  to  draw  from  this  resultant  conse- 
quences. It  therfeore  expresses  to  the  Ameri- 
can government  its  sincere  regret  regarding 
the  deplorable  incident  and  declares  its  read- 

73 


iness  to  pay  an  adequate  indemnity  to  the  in- 
jured American  citizens.  It  also  disapproved 
of  the  conduct  of  the  commander,    who    has 
been  appropiately  punished." 
Much  criticism  has  been  launched  against  the 
Wilson  administration  for  having  agreed  upon  the 
mild  and  perfectly  honorable  expression  of  regret 
contained  in  the  Urrutia-Thompson    treaty,    but    it 
seems  to  be  forgotten  that  the  Taft  Administration 
sent  to  Bogota  a  Minister  who,  as  the  initial  step  of 
his  mission  presented  a  solemn  document  to  the  Co- 
lombian Chancellery,  in  which  he  said: 

"The  Government  and  the  People  of  the 
United  States  sincerely  regret  the  occurrence 
of  events  that  in  any  manner  may  have  chang- 
ed the  long  and  sincere  friendship  which  exist- 
ed for  almost  a  century  between  Colombia  and 
the  United  States  has  ardently  desired  the  ef- 
facement  of  the  unfriendly  feeling  created  in 
Colombia  by  the  secession  of  Panama. 


74 


COLOMBIA   AND   THE 
PANAMA  CANAL 


COLOMBIA  AND  THE  PANAMA  CANAL 

The  relations  between  Colombia  and  the  United 
States,  until  1903  were  of  the  most  friendly  nature  and 
the  directness  of  Colombia  was  always  recognized 
by  the  United  States  not  only  in  negotiations  about 
the  Panama  Canal  but  in  all  matters  Let  us  remem- 
ber these  words  of  Abrahan  Lincoln  in  his  last  aimal 
message  (December  6,  1864) : 

"It  would  be  doing  injustice  to  an  impor- 
tant   South    American    State  not  to  acknow 
ledge    the    directness,    frankness,  and  cordia 
lity,  with  which  the  United  States  of  Colom- 
bia have  entered  into  intimate  relations  with 
this  Government-" 
The  statement  that  Colombia  ever  opposed  obs- 
tacles to  the  opening  of  the  Panama  canal  is  a  gross 
libel.  On  the  contrary  the  entire  dimplomatic  histo- 
ry of  Colombia,  from  the  time  of  its  emancipation 
from  Spain,  shows  how  great  was  her  desire  to  see 
the  canal  built,  although,  as  dictated  by  an  element- 
ary regard  for  her  self  preservation,  she  endeavour- 
ed to  bring  about  a  realization  of  her  desire  without 
any  impairment  of  her  own  sovereignty. 

The  canal  being  now  open,  Colombia  cannot  ig- 
nore the  fact  that  this  great  work  is  one  of  the  chief 
factors  in  the  future  material  development  of  the 

77 


world,  but  as  long  as  the  agreement  giving  a  lawful 
title  to  the  United  States  is  not  carried  out,  Colom- 
bia will  also  maintain  that  the  work,  great  as  it  is 
stands  as  a  monument  to  an  even  greater  crime;  and 
that  Colombia  and  Colombia  alone  is  the  lawful 
owner  of  the  Isthmus  of  Panama. 

Should  the  formal  opening  of  the  canal  unfor- 
tunately take  place  before  a  final  settlement  is 
arrived  at,  Colombia  will  be  forced  once  more  to 
protest  to  the  other  nations  of  the  world,  against  the 
violation  of  her  sovereignty. 

In  the  eyes  of  the  people  of  Colombia  and  of 
all  America,  the  Panama  Canal  stands  for  the  victory 
of  might  over  right,  the  triumph  of  brute  force  over 
law,  far  more  than  for  the  splendid  subjugation  of 
tropical  nature  by  the  science  and  energy  of  the 
people  of  the  United  States.  It  is  in  the  power  of 
the  United  States  to  remove  this  feeling,  to  change 
this  state  of  affairs  and  to  ensure  that  the  canal  shall 
be,  what  it  always  would  have  been  without  the  cri- 
me committed  in  1903,  and  what  the  governments 
and  statesmen  of  Colombia  and  the  United  States 
constantly  worked  for  it  to  be :  a  great  and  powerful 
link  uniting  the  two  Republics. 

Reference  has  been  made  to  the  danger  which 
might  accrue  to  the  canal  if  it  were  attacked  from 
Colombian  territory  and  of  the  necessity  of  prevent- 
ing an  alliance  between  Colombia  and  any  other 
nation.  If  any  such  danger  or  any  such  necessity 
exist,  the  best  guarantee  of  the  safety  of  the  canal 
lies  in  an  agreement  with  Colombia. 

78 


In  a  letter  which  I  wrote  to  the  Washington 
Post  on  this  question  I  said: 

"In  one  of  the  editorials  of  the  Wash- 
ington Post  of  Januray  24,  I  find  the  follow- 
ing paragraph: 

'There  is  a  possible  source  of  war  in  the 
danger  to  which  the  Panama  Canal  would  be 
exposed  in  case  Colombia  should  make  a  bar- 
gain with  an  oversea  power  seeking  territory 
in  South  or  Central  America.  The  canal  could 
be  attacked  from  the  territory  of  Colombia 
and  the  ports  of  that  Republic  used  advan- 
tageously by  a  naval  enemy  of  the  United  Sta- 
tes to  forbid  the  making  of  an  alliance  between 
Colombia  and  any  European  or  Asiatic  power 
having  for  its  object  an  assault  upon  the  Pa- 
nama canal,  and  the  first  errand  of  the  Ame- 
rican fleet  would  be  to  protect  the  canal.' 

"Anyone  reading  the  above  statement 
without  a  knowledge  of  the  geography  of  this 
hemisphere  might  possibly  be  led  to  believe 
that  Colombia  is  a  protectorate  and  not  a  sov- 
ereing  and  independent  nation  of  six  million 
inhabitants,  with  its  own  free  institutions  and 
enjoying  the  same  rights  as  the  United  States 
and  the  other  nations  of  the  Pan-American 
Union." 

"When  onte  this  rectification  has  been 
made,  permit  me  to  say  that  the  fear  that  the 
Panama  Canal  might  be  attacked  some  day 
from  Colombian  territory  may  be  averted  in 

79 


due  time  by  the  United  States,  should  such  a 
danger  really  exist,  not  by  means  of  a  policy 
of  aggression  which  the  Colombian  people, 
firmly  and  fully  conscious  of  its  rights,  would 
always  reject,  but  by  means  of  a  policy  of  fra- 
ternity, fellowship  and  justice  which  will  unite 
the  two  countries  in  common  ideals,  common 
interests,  and  common  sentiments.  Such  a  po- 
licy calls  for  the  restoration — by  means  of  the 
reparation  of  past  grievances — of  the  ancient 
and  traditional  goodwill  and  friendship  bet- 
ween Colombia  and  the  United  States.  In  this 
connection  let  me  remind  you  that  Dr.  Jose 
Maria  Galviz,  a  delegate  from  the  Republic 
of  Chile  to  the  Second  Pan  American  Scien- 
dific  Congress,  expressed  in  "The  Boston 
Globe"  his  astonishment  that  reparation 
should  still  be  delayed." 

''The  friendship  between  Colombia  and 
the  United  States  had  as  a  firm  basis  the  si- 
milarity of  democratic  institutions,  and  culmi- 
nated in  the  Treaty  of  1846,  which  became  an 
exceptional  agreement  in  the  history  of  Unit- 
ed States  diplomacy,  and  which  was  unfortu- 
nately violated  in  1903  when  the  dismember- 
ment of  Colombian  territory  through  the  se- 
paration of  Panama  was  countenanced." 

"Thanks  to  this  genuine  friendship,  not 
only  the  political  relations  of  the  two  count- 
ries improved,  but  their  commercial  inter- 
course grew  by  rapid  strides-  Has  the  fact  that 


Colombia  opened  her  doors  and  allowed  free 
passage  through  the  Isthmus  of  Panama  to 
everything  needed  for  the  development  of  Ca- 
lifornia and  the  other  western  States  been 
forgotten?'' 

"If  the  safeguarding  of  the  Panama  Canal 
enters  into  the  scheme  of  the  national  de- 
fense of  the  United  States,  it  is  natural  to  sup- 
pose that  that  protection  would  be  sought  in 
an  honest  and  loyal  manner  by  cultivating  the 
friendship  of  Colombia  and  by  respecting  her 
sovereignty;  it  can  never  be  attained  by  re- 
turning to  a  policy  already  disapproved  by  the 
whole  of  the  American  continent. 

"As  Minister  for  Foreign  Affairs  of  Co- 
lombia and  in  every  other  important  position 
held  by  me,  I  have  zealously  labored  to  bring 
about  a  good  understanding  between  Colom- 
bia and  the  United  States,  and  it  is  my  earnest 
hope  that  all  those  in  this  country  who  may 
desire  to  see  the  future  relations  of  the  two 
republics  guided  by  a  spirit  of  justice  and  con- 
fraternity will  direct  their  efforts  to  the  attain- 
ment of  this  same  lofty  purpose." 


8x 


COLOMBIA'S  CASE 
AND    PAN-AMERICANISM 


COLOMBIA'S  CASE  AND  PAN-AMERICANISM 

Inmediately  after  coming  into  power  the  Wilson 
Administration  sought  to  realize  one  of  the  parts 
of  the  democratic  programe  by  doing  justice  to  Co- 
lombia. For  that  purpose  Mr.  Thadeus  A.  Thompson, 
a  diplomat  of  high  attainments  and  just  mind,  was 
sent  to  Bogota  with  Specific  instructions  to  propose 
a  Treaty.  After  extended  negotiation  in  which  he 
overcame  Colombia's  strong  belief  that  the  case  could 
only  be  satisfactorily  settled  by  arbitration,  Mr. 
Thompson  realized  the  object  of  his  mission  and  on 
April  6,  1914,  there  was  signed  in  the  capital  of  Co- 
lombia the  Tre:aty  for  the  settlement  of  the  differen- 
ces that  had  arisen  from  the  loss  of  Panama,  which 
is  now  before  the  Senate  of  the  United  States. 

The  signature  of  that  treaty  was  hailed  with 
keen  satisfaction  throughout  Latin-America.  With- 
out exception  the  leading  newspapers  of  every  Ame- 
rican nation  praised  it,  and  this  feeling  was  even 
conveyed  by  official  acts  of  various  governments. 
From  that  moment  lost  confidence  began  to  revive, 
and  a  great  impetus  was  given  to  the  ideals  of  Pan- 
Americanism. 

The  success  of  the  late  Pan-American  Scientific 
Congress  which  met  this  year  in  Washington  was  an 
earnest  proof  of  this  re-awakened  confidence.  Had  it 
not  been  for  the  high  aims  and  just  spirit  of  the  Wil- 

85 


son  policies  there  could  have  been  no  such  unanimous 
cordiality  on  this  continent  as  was  manifest  on  that 
occasion.  Attention  was  solemnly  called  to  this  fact 
in  Philadelphia  by  one  of  the  delegates  to  the  Con- 
gress- 

The  report  of  the  Senate  Committee  on  Foreign 
Relations  on  the  Colombian  Treaty,  coming  as  it  did 
a  few  days  after  the  adjournment  of  the  Congress, 
created  a  most  unfavorable  impression  as  being  at 
variance  with  the  spirit  of  cordiality  and  of  construc- 
tive Pan-Americanism  which  had  been  so  marked  a 
feature  of  the  Scientific  Congress  and  of  the  meeting 
of  the  American  Institute  of  International  Law. 
Such  Colombians  as  had  taken  part  in  the  deliberat- 
ions of  these  two  bodies,  were  really  able  to  believe 
that  at  last  the  time  had  come  when  the  dark  days 
of  difficulties  between  Colombia  and  the  United  Sta- 
tes were  really  at  an  end.  We  were  most  unhappily 
wrong,  and  we  must  admit  at  the  very  least  that  our 
confidence  was  misplaced. 

Several  of  the  delegates  of  other  American 
republics  who  attended  the  sessions  made  no  at- 
tempt to  conceal  their  conviction  that  before  the 
brotherhood  of  the  Americas  could  be  an  accomplish- 
ed fact  the  questions  between  Colombia  and  the 
United  States  would  have  to  be  settled.  The  truth  is 
that  these  questions  in  the  state  in  which  they  have 
been  left  by  the  report  of  the  Committee  on  Fore- 
ign Relations  of  the  United  States  Senate  will  con- 
tinue to  be  an  insurmountable  obstacle  to  the  develop- 
ment of  Pan-American  ideals  and  principles  in  which 


all  the  nations  of  the  new  world  are  more  or  less  de- 
eply interested. 

What  is  happening  in  respect  to  the  Pan-Ame- 
rican treaty  recently  suggested  by  the  Government 
of  the  United  States  bears  out  what  we  say.  President 
Wilson,  whose  noble  desire  to  bring  closer  together, 
within  the  bounds  of  justice  and  equality,  the  peoples 
of  the  American  continent  will  be  one  of  the  great 
glories  of  his  administration,  recently  proposed  to  all 
the  American  nations  a  Treaty  the  principal  clauses 
of  which  would  be: 

"Article  I. — The  high  contracting  parties 
agree  to  join  one  another  in  a  common  and 
mutual  guarantee  of  territorial  integrity  un- 
der Republican  forms  of  Government. 

"Article  II. — To  give  definite  application 
to  the  guarantees  set  forth  in  Article  I,  the 
high  contracting  parties  severally  agree  to 
endeavor  forthwith  to  reach  a  settlement  of  all 
disputes  as  to  boundaries  or  territory  now 
pending  between  them  by  amicable  agreement 
or  by  means  of  international  arbitration. 

Article  III. — The  high  contracting  parties 
further  agree  that  all  questions  of  internatio- 
nal character  arising  between  any  two  or  more 
of  them  which  cannot  be  settled  by  the  or- 
dinary means  of  diplomatic  correspondence 
shall  before  any  declaration  of  war,  or  begin- 
ning of  hostilities  be  first  submitted  to  a  per- 
manent international  commission  for  inves- 
tigations, and  if  the  dispute  is  not  settled  by 

87 


investigation  to  submit  the  same  to  arbitra- 
tion, provided  the  question  in  dispute  does  not 
affect  the  honor,  independence,  or  vital  inte- 
rests of  the  nations  concerned  or  the  interests 
of  third  parties. 

Article  IV. — To   the    end   that   domestic 
tranquillity  may  prevail  within  their  territory, 
the  high  contracting  parties  furher  agree  not 
to  permit  the  departure  of  any  military  or  na- 
val expedition  hostile  to  the  established  gov- 
ernment of  any  of  the  contracting  parties  and 
to  prevent  the  exportation  of  arms  and  mu- 
nitions of  war  destined  to  any  person  or  per- 
sons in  insurrection  or  revolt  against  the  Gov- 
ernment of  any  of  the  contracting  parties. 
As  far  as  we  many  judge  by  reports  which  have 
appeared  in  the  American  press  and  especially  an 
article  in  the  New  York  Evening  Post  of  April  i, 
1916,  on  the  negotiations  in  connection  with  the  pro- 
posed Treaty,  it  has  met  with  certain  objections  from 
several  of  the  diplomats  acredited  to  the  Government 
of  Washington  by  other  American  Republics.  In  no 
small  measure  these  objections  have  borne  upon  the 
pending  controversy     with     Colombia,  the  present 
state  of  which  does  not  appear  to  be  compatible  with 
a  treaty  of  the  nature  of  the  one  proposed. 


To  bring  this  work  to  a  close  I  cannot  do  better 
than  to  quote  the  words  of  Abraham  Lincoln,  in  his 
last  annual  message,  on  the  policy  of  Colombia  tow- 
ards the  United  States: 

''It  would  be  doing  injustice  to  an  impor- 
tant South  American  State  not  to  acknowled- 
ge the  directness,  frankness  and  cordiality 
with  which  the  United  States  of  Colombia 
have  entered  into  intimate  relations  with  this 
Government." 


89 


THE  TREATY 


TREATY 

Between  the  United  States  of  America  and  the  Rep- 
ublic of  Colombia,  for  the  settlement  of  their 
differences  arising  out  of  the  events 
which  took  place  on  the 
Isthmus  of  Panama 
in  November 
1903 

The  United  States  of  America  and  the  Republic 
of  Colombia,  being  desirous  to  remove  all  the  mis- 
understandings growing  out  of  the  political  events 
in  Panama  in  November  1903;  to  restore  the  cor- 
dial friendship  that  formerly  characterized  the  rela- 
tions between  the  two  countries,  and  also  to  define 
and  regulate  their  rights  and  interests  in  respect  of 
the  interoceanic  canal  which  the  Government  of  the 
United  States  is  constructing  across  the  Isthmus  of 
Panama,  have  resolved  for  this  purpose  to  conclude 
a  Treaty  and  have  accordingly  appointed  as  their 
Plenipotentiaries : 

His  Excellency  the  President  of  the  United  Sta- 
tes of  America,  Thaddeus  Austin  Thomson,  Envoy 
Extraordinary  and  Minister  Plenipotenciary  of  the 
United  States  de  America  to  the  Government  of  the 
Republic  of  Colombia;  and 

93 


His  Excellency  the  President  of  Colombia, 
Francisco  Jose  Urrutia,  Minister  for  Foreign  Affairs; 
Marco  Fidel  Suarez,  First  Designate  to  exercise  the 
Executive  Power;  Nicolas  Esguerra,  ex-Minister  of 
State;  Jose  Maria  Gonzalez  Valencia,  Senator;  Ra- 
fael Uribe  Uribe,  Senator;  and  Antonio  Jose  Uribe, 
President  of  the  House  of  Representatives ; 

Who,  after  communicating  to  each  other  their 
respective  full  pov^ers,  v^hich  were  found  to  be  in 
due  and  proper  form,  have  agreed  upon  the  follow- 
ing: 

Article  I 

The  Government  of  the  United  States  of  Ameri- 
ca, wishing  to  put  at  rest  all  controversies  and  dif- 
ferences with  the  Republic  of  Colombia  arising  out 
of  the  events  from  which  the  present  situation  on  the 
Isthmus  of  Panama  resulted,  expresses,  in  its  own 
name  and  in  the  name  of  the  people  of  the  United 
States,  sincere  regret  that  anything  should  have  oc- 
curred to  interrupt  or  to  mar  the  relations  of  cordial 
friendship  that  had  so  long  subsisted  between  the 
two  nations. 

The  Government  of  the  Republic  of  Colombia,  in 
its  own  name  and  in  the  name  of  the  Colombian  peo- 
ple accepts  this  declaration  in  the  full  assurance  that 
every  obstacle  to  the  restoration  of  complete  harmo- 
ny between  the  two  countries  will  thus  disappear. 

Article  II 

The  Republic  of  Colombia  shall  enjoy  the  follow- 
ing rights  in  respect  to  the  interoceanic  Canal  and 
Panama  Railway: 

94 


I.  The  Republic  of  Colombia  shall  be  at  liberty 
at  all  times  to  transport  through  the  interoceanic  Ca- 
nal its  troops,  materials  of  war  and  ships  of  war,  even 
in  case  of  war  between  Colombia  and  another  coun- 
try, without  paying  any  charges  to  the  United  Sta- 
tes. 

2-  The  products  of  the  soil  and  industry  of  Co- 
lombia passing  through  the  Canal,  as  well  as  the  Co- 
lombian mails,  shall  be  exempt  from  any  charge  or 
duty  other  than  those  to  which  the  products  and 
mails  of  the  United  States  may  be  subject.  The  pro- 
ducts of  the  soil  and  industry  of  Colombia,  such  as 
cattle,  salt  and  provisions  shall  be  admitted  to  entry 
in  the  Canal  Zone,  and  likewise  in  the  islands  and 
main  land  occupied  or  which  may  be  occupied  by 
the  United  States  as  auxiliar  y  and  accessory  thereto, 
without  paying  other  duties  or  charges  than  those 
payable  by  similar  products  of  the  United  States. 

3.  Colombian  citizens  crossing  the  Canal  Zone 
shall,  upon  production  of  proper  proof  of  their  na- 
tionality, be  exempt  from  every  toll,  tax  or  duty  to 
which  citizens  of  the  United  States  are  not  subject. 

4.  During  the  construction  of  the  Interoceanic 
Canal  and  afterwards,  whenever  traffic  by  the  Canal 
is  interrupted  or  whenever  it  shall  be  necessary  for 
any  other  reason  to  use  the  railway,  the  troops,  ma- 
terials of  war,  products  and  mails  of  the  Republic  of 
Colombia,  as  above  mentioned,  shall,  even  in  case  of 
war  between  Colombia  and  another  country,  be  tran- 
sported on  the  Railway  between  Ancon  and  Cristo- 
bal or  on  any  other  Railway  substituted  therefor, 

9$ 


paying  only  the  same  charges  and  duties  as  are  im- 
posed upon  the  troops,  materials  of  war,  products  and 
mails  of  the  United  States.  The  officers,  agents  and 
employees  of  the  Government  of  Colombia,  shall, 
upon  production  of  proper  proof  of  their  official  cha- 
racter or  their  employment,  also  be  entitled  to  pas- 
sage on  the  said  Railway  on  the  same  terms  as  offi- 
cers, agents  and  employees  of  the  Government  of  the 
United  States.  The  provisions  of  this  paragraph  shall 
not,  however,  apply  in  case  of  war  between  Colombia 
and  Panama. 

5.  Coal,  petroleum  and  sea  salt,  being  the  pro- 
ducts of  Colombia,  passing  from  the  Atlantic  coast 
of  Colombia  to  any  Colombian  port  on  the  Pacific 
coast,  and  viceversa,  shall  be  transported  over  the 
aforesaid  Railway  free  of  any  charge  except  the  ac- 
tual cost  of  handling  and  transportation,  which  shall 
not  in  any  case  exceed  one  half  the  ordinary  freight 
charges  levied  upon  similar  products  of  the  United 
States  passing  over  the  Railway  and  in  transit  from 
one  port  to  another  of  the  United  States- 
Article  III 

The  United  States  of  America  agrees  to  pay  to 
the  Republic  of  Colombia,  within  six  months  after 
the  exchange  of  the  ratifications  of  the  present  Trea- 
ty, the  sum  of  twenty-five  million  dollars  gold.  Unit- 
ed States  money. 

Article  IV 

The  Republic  of  Colombia  recognizes  Panama  as 
an  independent  nation  and  taking  as  a  basis  the  Co- 
lombian law  of  June  9,  1855,  agrcK  that  the  boundary 


shall  be  the  following:  From  Cape  Tiburon  to  the 
headwaters  of  the  Rio  de  La  Miel  and  following  the 
mountain  chain  by  the  ridge  of  Gandi  to  the  Sierra 
de  Chugargun  and  that  of  Mali  going  down  by  the 
ridges  of  Nigue  to  the  heights  of  Aspave  and  from 
thence  to  a  point  on  the  Pacific  half  way  between  Co- 
calito  and  La  Ardita. 

In  consideration  of  this  recognition,  the  Gov- 
ernment of  the  United  States  will,  inmediately  after 
the  exchange  of  the  ratifications  of  the  present  Trea- 
ty, take  the  necessary  steps  in  order  to  obtain  from 
the  Government  of  Panama  the  despatch  of  a  duly 
acredited  agent  to  negotiate  and  conclude  with  the 
Government  of  Colombia  a  Treaty  of  Peace  and 
Friendship,  with  a  view  to  bring  about  both  the  es- 
tablishment of  regular  diplomatic  relations  between 
Colombia  and  Panama  and  the  adjustment  of  all  ques- 
tion of  pecuniary  liability  as  between  the  two  coun- 
tries, in  accordance  with  recognized  principles  of  law 
and  precedents. 

Article  V. 

The  present  Treaty  shall  be  aproved  and  ratifi- 
ed by  the  High  Contracting  Parties  in  conformity 
with  their  respective  laws,  and  the  ratifications  lliere- 
of  shall  be  exchanged  in  the  city  of  Bogota,  as 
soon  as  may  be  possible. 

In  faith  whereof,  the  said  plenipotentiaries  have 
signed  the  present  Treaty  in  duplicate  and  have  he- 
reunto affixed  their  respective  seals- 
Done  at  the  city  of  Bogota,  the  sixth  day  of  April 

97 


in  the  year  of  Our  Lord  nineteen  hundred  and  four- 
teen. 

(L.  S.)  Signed,  Thaddeus  Austin  Thomson. — 
(L.  S.)  Signed,  Francisco  Jose  Urrutia. — (L.  S.) 
Signed  Marco  Fidel  Suarez. — (L.  S.)  Signed,  Nico- 
las Esguerra. — (L.  S.)  Signed,  Jose  M,  Gonzalez  Va- 
lencia— (L.  S.)  Signed,  Rafael  Uribe  Uribe.— (L.  S.) 
Signed,  Antonio  Jose  Uribe. 


98 


^N  INITIAL  F^^O;r.oS 

DAY    AND    TO     $10" 

OVERDUE.  == 


/:i^ 


UD  21-l00m-8,'34 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


'••  .-  ■  h,-^ 


iiilii 

iiiiiJlHlill 

'!««»  !Sji!|i|| 


mm 


